Rosie Winterton: Obviously congestion at peak times is an issue, but all the evidence suggests that without the tolls it would be even worse. The Dartford crossing is a vital part of the national road network, and is used by about 150,000 vehicles every day. In the longer term the answer may be a new crossing, which is why we have commissioned a study.

Nicholas Winterton: what recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the road infrastructure in the north-west of England, with particular reference to south Manchester and north-east Cheshire.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, accept that my constituency of Macclesfield in north-east Cheshire does not receive a fair allocation of resources for road infrastructure improvement? Does he agree that improved road infrastructure can lead to increased economic development and activity and can reduce carbon emissions in the community? Will he look at the situation in south Manchester and north-east Cheshire to see whether a fairer allocation of resources cannot be provided?

Tom Harris: Obviously I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I agree that good roads infrastructure is essential to the health of the economy and of the environment, but, as he will probably know, road spending in the north-west has more than doubled since 2000. The south-east Manchester multimodal study, commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), has come up with possible solutions for the south-east Manchester relief road. That is a very expensive project—costing possibly between £700 million and £1 billion—and it cannot go ahead as a single scheme. We are looking at progressing parts of that scheme in phases. He will know that a crucial part of that is the Poynton bypass in his constituency. We are working very hard with all representatives in the local area to come up with an affordable proposition. But to claim that the Government have not spent enough money on the roads infrastructure in his constituency, or anywhere else in the country, would be false.

Tom Harris: Of course I understand the frustration felt by constituents and MPs on both sides of the House when a particularly important roads scheme is not progressed according to the time scale that we originally expected. As the Government, we have to make sure that whenever a roads scheme is progressed, it delivers best value for money. Regardless of the record amounts of money that the Government are investing in the roads infrastructure, we have to make sure that every pound is well spent. I notice that the transport plans issued by the hon. Gentleman's party today do not offer much extra money on top of what we have already offered.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he keeps doing this and he will be stopped. He must keep confine his comments to the question. He does this on a regular basis, and I am sorry to draw him up on it, but he will not do it again.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. We do not want UK hauliers disadvantaged by those coming from outside, whether the issue is dirty or cheaper fuel, hauliers not observing the regulations on tiredness or overloading their vehicles, or any other regulation being abused. That is why we have reinforced the amount of money available to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, the enforcement agency, to make sure that it can police vehicles far more effectively than they have ever been policed before. I assure him that it is determined to do that, and is doing that.

Jim Fitzpatrick: As I explained to the hon. Lady only a moment ago, the Government carried out the freight data feasibility study to try to identify the best way of protecting the British road haulage industry. It was determined through that study, in which, as I understand it, the Road Haulage Association co-operated and participated, that a vignette scheme of the order that would be allowed would not be appropriate, and that the best way to protect the RHA and British industry was to beef up the enforcement on our roads to make sure that foreign hauliers would not be able to take any further advantage. That is what we said we would do. That is what we have done with the extra £24 million that we have allocated to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, and that extra enforcement will have an impact.

John Robertson: Yesterday the head of the International Air Transport Association commented that the UK's Civil Aviation Authority is the "world's worst regulator" and criticised the UK as BAA's "Monopoly-land". For years I have called for an end to the ludicrous situation whereby Scotland's two major airports in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which are only 40 miles apart, are owned by the same people. It is time to solve the problem, much the same as in London—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to stop the hon. Gentleman. It seems that I am stopping many hon. Members. A supplementary question in a fast-paced situation should be short and sharp.

Ruth Kelly: The point that my hon. Friend was rightly making is that it is important to have good service from all British airports, including those in Edinburgh and Glasgow. He is right, too, to point to the Competition Commission report, which is examining ownership of British airports and argued that the issue was not only ownership, but aviation capacity in the United Kingdom. Clearly, I cannot pre-empt the report's final conclusions, but when the major hub airport in England is operating at virtually 99 per cent. capacity, it is perhaps not surprising that there are knock-on implications, first and foremost for other British airports. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents who use Glasgow and Edinburgh airports will feel the result of that.

Tom Harris: I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to pre-empt any announcement that the Office of Rail Regulation will make later this week, tempting though it is. I pay tribute to him for the resilient and dedicated campaign that he has run for the redoubling of that particular line, but I, like him, will have to wait for a further announcement from the ORR.

Clive Betts: I am sure the Minister is aware of the £100 million scheme proposed by Network Rail to cut 10 minutes off the journey time between Sheffield and London on the midland main line. Given that that scheme would cost only 1 per cent. of what was spent on the west coast main line but would yield 25 per cent. of its benefits in terms of journey time savings, does he not agree that it is a very good deal? Given the benefits to Sheffield and other economies in the area, it ought to be given favourable consideration by the Government.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend has run an enthusiastic campaign on this scheme. It is not my job as Rail Minister to interpret the engineering benefits of the scheme; it is up to Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation, as he knows. I am sure that in the next few days we will get an assessment from the ORR of whether the scheme is deliverable and represents best value for money.

Hugh Bayley: We have just heard a witty and amusing speech. I was not aware that this issue was going to be raised today, but I was sitting in the Chamber listening to Transport questions and suddenly the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) rose to his feet and made this proposal. He said that he had asked a number of Euro-enthusiasts to back his Bill; I regard myself as a Euro-enthusiast, but he did not ask me. Had he done so, he would have given me advance notice that he was going to make this nonsensical proposal, and I would have been able to prepare a better speech. However, I shall certainly try to rise to the challenge that he has thrown across the Chamber.
	The right hon. Gentleman argues that the volume of legislation to be considered by the House will decline as more and more powers are passed across to the European Parliament, but he knows as well as any other Member that the volume of legislation considered by this House continues to increase year by year. We have never suggested that that is an argument for increasing Members' pay pro rata—

James Plaskitt: We come to what are almost the final stages of Parliament's consideration of the Bill. Indeed, we are just short of the first anniversary of my introducing it to the House on 5 June 2007. Over almost a year of consideration, we have found much cross-party agreement and consensus as the Bill has proceeded on its way.
	Before I dive into consideration of the first batch of amendments, I want to place on record my appreciation of the way that hon. Members dealt with the Bill in Committee, where we had detailed, co-operative and constructive deliberations, which have helped to improve it. As I speak to the amendments, hon. Members representing the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat party will spot ideas that they brought up in Committee, which I promised on behalf of the Government to take away and consider. I have done that. Those with merit found favour, and are therefore to be incorporated in the Bill in a way that will improve it.
	The Bill was considered extensively in the other place, where, of course, some of those amendments originated. The process has been constructive, and we now have before us a batch of amendments which are, I think, not too controversial—we shall find out soon—and should add the final polish to a well-considered Bill.
	The first group of amendments relates to the status of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission and to its reporting requirements. The amendments make the necessary provision for the new body to have Crown status to provide stability for the Child Support Agency's greatest resource, its staff.

James Plaskitt: There is no great mystery. The most important thing that the Bill introduces is the commission, which will be a non-departmental public body. We opted for NDPB status because we think it important to put the operation of the commission, and therefore the delivery of child maintenance, at arm's length from ministerial involvement. That argument has been rehearsed exhaustively throughout all stages of the Bill's consideration, and I thought that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had accepted that this was the right way in which to proceed.
	Normally when a body takes on non-departmental status the civil servants who work in that body also take on a different status, but when Ministers discussed the issue with staff, they made clear their concern about it. Having listened, we reached an understanding—as I have already announced—allowing the commission to be a non-departmental public body but allowing its staff to enjoy Crown status. That is not a unique solution; there are precedents.

John Bercow: Amendment 2(6) makes provision for an order-making power. My view is that clarity is of the essence. Is it intended that that order-making power should be subject to the negative procedure of the House or to its affirmative counterpart?

John Bercow: It might prompt the Minister, although I suspect that the answer is now being furnished to him, if I tell him that his noble Friend in the other place promised that it would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which, for the benefit of those listening to our proceedings, means that there would be an element of parliamentary scrutiny. He is not going to renege on that, is he?

Oliver Heald: Even now, the Minister has not finally made up his mind as to whether it should be a Crown body. The point about amendment No. 2 is that he will review the matter again. We started off with an arm's length body without civil servants. Then we had the halfway house of having civil servants, but with it still being an arm's length body. Now the Government are agreeing to have another look at it in three years. Not only have they dithered, they propose to continue dithering for another three years.

James Plaskitt: This is getting a bit repetitive. Let me say again that there is no dithering. The fundamental objective, namely the non-departmental public status and all of the advantages that flow from that, is in place, unaltered and unamended by anything that we have done, save for the difference we have made in respect of the staff who work for the existing agency, who were concerned about their loss of civil service status. We have been able to retain that. That is the only thing that has changed; it is not fundamental in terms of the purpose of the Bill and has been accommodated within the Bill's essential objectives. It is subject to review and I will come on to explain why that is.

James Plaskitt: The key point is that this is an issue specific to the commission. The reason why it makes sense to review, and why I chose my words carefully regarding Crown status, is that there may well be reconsideration across government as a whole of the position of the Crown status of the bodies concerned. It is important that we recognise that a wider review is taking place that might change some of the current conditions regarding Crown status, in a way whereby the specific arrangement made for this commission may no longer have its current advantages. It is therefore simply logical to accept that there will be a review, not specifically of this body but in the context of a wider review of Crown status. However, and as I said, just as we have listened to the staff at this point and been able to agree to their request to retain Crown status, their views on this matter will be critical to the commission and to us in future, at the point of review. I am happy to underline that point.
	I have also taken on board the point made in Committee and in the other place that the Bill explicitly requires the commission to include in its annual report its use of outsourcing to private and voluntary social bodies, but not to public bodies. An amendment has therefore been made to put the latter requirement in the Bill. That picks up on a very sensible proposal made by the Opposition in Committee.
	I believe that this group of amendments improves the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Andrew Selous: Let me start by thanking the Minister for his thanks to Opposition Members for our co-operation and scrutiny during the Bill's passage. He is absolutely right—Members in all parts of the House are absolutely united in trying to get our system of child support right. We all recognise that that has not been the case for many years, and the fault for that really lies with Members of this House present and past, and absolutely not with the staff—I agree with the Minister on that—who have done their best in difficult circumstances. Frankly, they have not had the tools to do the job, as he said. The Bill contains a pretty powerful toolkit that we on the Conservative Benches agree with in very large part.
	On amendment No. 1, we welcome the extra transparency provided by the inclusion in the commission's annual report on the provision of services to CMEC by Ministers of the Crown, Government Departments or public bodies specified by the Secretary of State. Co-operation, in particular with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, will be fundamental to the commission's future success. I give the Minister advance notice that when we discuss the next group of amendments, I shall raise some specific issues about the current level of co-operation—or non co-operation, as sadly is the case—with HMRC, given existing legislation. I shall not expect him to have immediate answers, but I should be grateful if he would get back to me.
	Clearly, HMRC and the Treasury will be assisting CMEC, but it is not clear to me precisely what CMEC will be doing for other Departments and public bodies. Lords amendment No. 1 cuts both ways; it is about services supplied both to and by CMEC. I can clearly see that there is a case for CMEC to help HMRC should it find out details about information that is perhaps not being declared to the Revenue; that would be an entirely sensible use of CMEC staff time. However, will the Minister elaborate as to whether there are any other areas in which CMEC staff will be expected to help other Departments and public bodies? After all, it is not as if CMEC's staff will not already have enough to do and will not already have their work cut out significantly.
	The Minister began by discussing Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5, and 106 to 117. As he said, they will change the status of CMEC to that of a Crown body, and will ensure that the commission's staff will remain as civil servants and will not have to change their employer. Lords amendment No. 2 also introduces a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to review the status of the commission after three years, with the possibility of further reviews. I agree with the Minister that if we do not get staff morale right, we will not make a success of the commission. He rightly says that ensuring that the staff are happy and on board is essential. Given that Crown status is so important to the staff, will not reviewing it after three years, with the promise of further reviews, be unsettling to them? The Minister's objective might have been to reassure the staff—the 10,000 individuals of whom he spoke—but having constant ongoing reviews hanging over them is a funny way of doing that.

Andrew Selous: I agree with my hon. Friend, because certainty is important in employment; people want to know that their terms and conditions will not be unexpectedly changed or fundamentally reviewed. Those people joined the agency on a certain set of terms and conditions, with which they were happy, and they should have a reasonable expectation that their terms and conditions will be broadly similar in the future.
	At the very least, the Government's manoeuvrings have not been perhaps as elegant as they could have been, given where the Government started from and where they have ended up. Will the Minister tell us how many other NDPBs are Crown bodies whose staff are civil servants? Is such an arrangement usual for NDPBs, or will CMEC be an isolated case? It would help the House if he would let us know the answer to that.
	The Minister's colleague in another place, Lord McKenzie of Luton, who is virtually a parliamentary neighbour of mine, has said:
	"It is very important that the body is more at arm's length...Having a non-departmental public body with separate governance arrangements and with greater operational flexibility is a key part of the reforms. It is needed to distance the future from the legacy of current and past failure and the culture of non-compliance." ——[Official Report, Child Maintenance and Other Payments Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2007; c. 4, Q2.]
	My next question to the Minister was what stops an executive agency from having operational flexibility, to which I do not feel that I received a full and adequate answer at the time.
	Indeed, many hon. Members on both sides of the House have questioned the need to set up a new body, given that the same staff in the same buildings will carry out essentially the same tasks—or at least with the same purpose. The Minister's argument about the need for this arm's length body has been undone, given that it will now have Crown status and that the staff will be civil servants. Would it not have saved taxpayers' money to leave CMEC as an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions and been much less unsettling for the staff, who have been worried by the proposed change in their status? The staff also have an ongoing worry, given that a review will take place in three years, with a promise of further reviews in the future. I hope that the Minister will address those points.

Paul Rowen: I welcome the Minister's introductory remarks. We made several suggestions and amendments in Committee and on Report, and I am delighted that many of those proposals have found acceptance and are presented for our consideration today. Like other hon. Members, I welcome the passage of the Bill. As the Minister said, it is 12 months since we started to consider it, and the eradication of child poverty remains one of the biggest single issues that we have to tackle. Anything that ensures that parents with care get the money to which they are entitled to enable children to be brought up properly is to be welcomed. We have to accept that the House has failed singularly in the past to tackle this issue through the many guises of the CSA and various payment methods. Last year, we all welcomed what seemed to be a new start with CMEC and, we hoped, a sea change in the way in which such issues are addressed.
	I welcome amendment No. 1. It is important that CMEC is transparent about its arrangements with other suppliers. We need to know if it is using debt collection agencies or if it makes arrangements with computer suppliers. In the past, the CSA's arrangements were not as transparent as they should have been, and expectations were raised—for example, about how much debt collection agencies would collect—and then not met. I hope that with greater scrutiny—which CMEC will receive—we will be able to question suppliers and ensure the accountability to this House to which we are entitled.
	On Report, the Minister said that amendments would be tabled in the other place to give CMEC Crown status. We know, because this was one of the first Bills to receive public scrutiny, that the staff want that, and it is a sensible move. However, I am not clear—other than from the Minister's claim that there will be a general review of Crown status—why he has added the provision about a review after three years. It is quite clear that if there is a change of Government policy, not only in the Department for Work and Pensions but across the piece, that change should be made through a statement in this House that cites the reasons for it. Having gone through quite a sea change in terms of the way in which payments are collected, it is clearly unsettling for staff to face the prospect in three years' time of the possibility of being subject yet again to a review. I am still not clear about how the proposal will affect the status and conditions of the civil servants—I understand that they will remain civil servants while they work for the Crown. I do not think that the review is helpful. The Minister needs to give a clear statement that the current status will continue.
	Yes, the Government might announce a change in the future. If, in three years' time, the Minister were to announce a review of the operation of CMEC, that would be totally different. However, it is unhelpful to the staff to talk at this stage about merely reviewing that status after three years, because that does not help them with their task of tackling child poverty.
	One subject that has not been mentioned, which was raised by my noble Friend Lord Kirkwood in the other place, is VAT. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that another factor in the Department's consideration of the amendment was that VAT would be payable if the commission were a non-departmental public body, but that if it were a Crown body, the £140 million would not be payable. If it seems that someone had not budgeted for that, perhaps the Minister could confirm whether it was a factor in the changes that have now been proposed?
	In conclusion, I welcome the changes, but in terms of moving forward, the Minister needs to reassure us about why the review in three years' time is necessary without an overall change in Government policy, and I have not seen an announcement that that will take place. The prospect of such a review is clearly unsettling to staff and it will not help them in their difficult job of collecting the outstanding old debt as well as getting a new system up and running.

Oliver Heald: That is exactly the point, and my hon. Friend is right to use the expression "Henry VIII power". Historically, the House has been very jealous not to give away Henry VIII powers that change great parts of primary legislation simply by regulation. The Government have been very careless about that. One remembers the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which a number of us were involved with. Luckily, we managed to persuade the Government not to introduce something so draconian. The fact is that the Government are well prepared to entertain such powers, which Parliament has traditionally assumed. Let us consider the proposals that we will get next week. I will not go into them in detail, but this is all part of a pattern of removing ancient liberties without enough thought or consideration.
	My other point about leadership is that dithering is a decision in itself. Not making a decision is a decision if someone is in government and in a position of leadership. The Government have got form under this Prime Minister for dithering badly. There was the election and Northern Rock, and now we see in the Bill another example of dithering. What does that say to the civil servants, who are expected to work for the Government—that their position is uncertain for a year during the consideration of the Bill and that Ministers are prepared to throw away civil servants' pensions, pay and rations on a whim? When the Government finally come to their senses and decide that they will keep the civil servants doing the job, they do not even make a definite decision; they say, "Oh well, we'll have another look at it in three years' time," and if they want to take away the Crown status, all the civil servants can just lose their status and all the important aspects of their role can be lost in a Committee upstairs. Thank goodness, the affirmative procedure will apply, but it does not say much for the Government that such important decisions should be taken in that way.
	I hope that, as my hon. Friend asked, the Minister will now explain—this is my final point—the criteria for the review. Will he set them out now? What is really going on? Will he come clean with the House?

Michael Weir: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) said that we started on the Bill a year ago; somehow it seems a lot longer than that, although we had an enjoyable and informative Committee stage, in which we got through a lot. When I saw the Lords amendments, I was slightly disappointed that their Lordships had not given me the opportunity to dust down my old arguments about the Scottish minutes of agreement and had not given me one last chance to persuade the Minister how wrong he is on that issue. The Bill misses an opportunity. I still have some of the reservations that I expressed in Committee, sometimes at fair length.

Michael Weir: I did get some support, and I was very grateful for it at the time. I am sorry that this is one of the issues on which the Government have not seen sense. Having said that, I am pleased to see some of the amendments on the Lords amendment paper, and that the combined arguments of the Opposition in Committee carried some weight and had results at later stages; some of the issues that we addressed have been returned to.
	On clause 2, I am pleased that the Government have gone a considerable way towards addressing the concerns raised regarding the status of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, but I share many of the concerns already expressed on that point, particularly regarding the three-year period. I have considerable experience of dealing with the Child Support Agency, both as a solicitor and latterly as a Member of Parliament. I have always found the staff to be as helpful as they can be but, over the years, they have put up with horrendous problems with the computer system and, frankly, with some incompetent management. That is reflected in many ways, including in the morale of staff in many offices, and in staff turnover. I remember visiting one centre where there was very high staff turnover—I cannot remember the exact figure—because of the pressure that staff were under, both in the job and because of the reaction of the public with whom they had to deal. The public had to deal only with the person on the coal face, and not with the computer system or the management behind the organisation.
	I am pleased that the Government have accepted that the staff should remain civil servants. I note what the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) says about making changes in a Committee Room upstairs, but he cannot have been subject to the campaign waged by the unions on the position of their members in the CSA. I am sure that debate on such a subject would not slip past unnoticed in a Committee Room upstairs without mass lobbying of the House by members of the unions, who are deeply concerned about the status of their members in the CSA. They perhaps saw the proposal as a bridgehead showing things to come. They, and many other organisations, will be watching closely any changes that are proposed.

Oliver Heald: I am sorry to have disappointed the Minister earlier. Nevertheless, does he not agree that the effect of the arrangements that he proposed, at least initially, was to distance the new body from Ministers relative to the situation that we have at the moment? There is no doubt that an Executive agency is much closer to Ministers, as part of the Department, than what he proposed originally or proposes now. It is a more distant arrangement, as Lord McKenzie said.

James Plaskitt: It is distant, but that does not mean, as the hon. Gentleman previously inferred, that Ministers have shirked responsibility. Yes, a greater distance is involved and the commissioners running the NDPB have greater autonomy than senior officials running an agency, but the ultimate link of accountability, which is established by the legislation, is not broken.

James Plaskitt: That is not the way I was taught logic. It does not mean that at all. The relationship can be more distant in terms of the taking of day-to-day operational decisions. There may be a greater distance from Ministers in that they will not have to sign off such decisions, but that does not water down in any sense the ultimate ministerial responsibility for what happens. The commission is given by statute—by Parliament—the core objectives that it has to achieve. Ministers will then set targets to turn those objectives into deliverable realities. Whether that happens or not remains ultimately the responsibility of a Minister who is accountable to Parliament. There is no shirking of responsibility; I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman on that point.
	I want to wrap up by returning to the three-year review, which seems to have concerned hon. Members. I shall try and resolve this matter, as well. The three-year review is not a new idea that we came up with in later stages of the passage of the Bill. The argument that some Members used to underline their concern is that the review will somehow unsettle the staff of the agency. Let me make it clear that I have had meetings with hundreds of the agency's staff. They know that the process is subject to a review, and they have always been clear about that. They have welcomed our decision to give Crown status, and they have always known that it is a renewable decision. The review has not in any way diminished their welcome of what we have done; they understand the way we are proceeding.
	As I said when introducing this group of amendments, in any subsequent review, the issue that will dominate will be the position of the staff. It is sensible to suggest that there might be a review because there might be a wider cross-government review of Crown status, but there are also issues specific to the commission. After three years, the new body will have had time to settle down: staff will be more familiar with the way in which it operates; issues about terms and conditions will have become much clearer; the size of the staffing that the commission wants will be clearer; its business plan will be apparent; and its performance will have settled down. In that sense, some of the issues that have given staff concern with regard to the disappearance of civil staff status may no longer concern them, in the light of three years' worth of experience of operating in the commission. That is another reason it makes sense to review the process.
	The review will not be done furtively or secretively. The provisions are in the Bill, and everyone knows that a review will take place. Any change has to come through affirmative resolutions, as we have already established. We are being completely transparent on the matter, and it is understood why that has to be the case. It has not been a difficulty for the staff as some hon. Members have suggested. I am satisfied—I genuinely want to reassure hon. Members about this—that staff are pleased with the decision we have made, and are supportive of it, given all the conditions that I have just outlined. If Members care to check for themselves, they will find confirmation of that view.
	I hope that I have responded to the points raised in the debate and that the amendments will be approved.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.
	New Clause
	 Lords amendment: No. 6

Andrew Selous: The official Opposition welcome the amendments in the second group, which, as the Minister said, cover three areas. Getting the assessments right is vital to the success of the commission. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the problems of the past were largely to do with the fact that the assessments were so ropey that they were disputed and delayed, and the parents who should have received the money did not receive it when they should have. The failure to get that right in the past has been at the heart of much of the CSA's difficulties.
	Lords amendment No. 6 is clearly sensible in ensuring that the commission will be able to consider additional information or evidence where that appears appropriate, before deciding applications for variations made by a parent with care or, in Scotland, by a child over the age of 12. That prompts one to ask why the amendment is needed. One would have thought and hoped that the Child Support Agency would always have available to it the latest relevant data when determining variations of maintenance, but, as we said in our discussions on the first group of amendments, perhaps some of us in this place did not do our job properly in relation to previous legislation. We should have made sure that such information was available to the CSA.
	The second sub-group of amendments in this group relates to the passage of information between the family courts and the commission. The amendments will allow parties to specified family proceedings to disclose relevant information to the commission, which is clearly sensible. I am sure that the absence of those provisions from current legislation has hindered the CSA's work in the past. The general issue is about ensuring that the commission and the family courts work hand in hand and do not work against each other to undo their good work.
	This is not the occasion on which to revisit the thorny issue of the 12-month rule—indeed, you would not allow it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—so I shall not go down that route. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is important to ensure that the family courts and the commission are not at war. They are basically in the same business: dealing with the tragic circumstances and trauma that occur when families split up, such as the need for specific care for children and, crucially, the need to ensure that the right amount of money gets through to the right parents. We support that.
	The Minister was quite brief on amendments Nos. 118 and 119, which are, as he said, crucial to making sure that there is the fullest possible co-operation between HMRC and the commission. I have looked into the legislation that affects the information gateway between the tax authorities and the current CSA, and I believe that one of the most useful things that we can do this afternoon is to tease out why it has not worked in the past. We are not expecting any Divisions, so I ask the Minister to give maximum co-operation regarding my concerns on this issue.
	It worries me—I say this to hon. Members on both sides of the House—that we are in the habit in this place of passing legislation, not using it fully and then passing more laws when things do not work. I have uncovered information that is directly relevant to amendments Nos. 118 and 119. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with section 80 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, which Labour passed two years after it came to power. He is not nodding, so I shall give him a gentle introduction to it.  [Interruption.] Perhaps he is familiar with it; I am delighted to hear that, but for the benefit of the House, I shall point out that section 80 places a requirement on the tax authorities and the CSA to pass information to each other about the earnings of self-employed earners. The explanatory notes to the Act state:
	"This provision allows the Inland Revenue, on a discretionary basis, to supply tax information it holds in respect of self-employed non-resident parents to the Child Support Agency (CSA). This is intended to enable the CSA to build up a financial picture of non-resident parents whose earnings either are not known or need to be verified."
	That sounds excellent and sensible, but the information that I have, from talking to HMRC staff who have been seconded to the CSA and who deal with my constituents' CSA matters, is that that is not working. It worries me that Lords amendments Nos. 118 and 119 refer to this very area of co-operation between HMRC and the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, despite the fact that we have passed measures on precisely the same subject not so long ago, and that those measures are not working as they should do.
	I should like to illustrate this argument with three points. First, HMRC has its own construction industry system of record keeping, to which the CSA should be entitled to have access in regard to self-employed parents. However, I have received information that that is not the case, and that when form 721—which could provide the relevant construction industry information—is filled in electronically, those data are denied to CSA staff, who cannot therefore make a correct assessment and make the child support system work properly. What is the point of having legislation on the statute book if there is imperfect co-operation—or none at all—between HMRC and the CSA?
	I have not given the Minister prior warning that I was going to raise this matter today, but it is a serious issue and I ask him perhaps to meet me afterwards and to look into the matter. The premise of the Bill is largely based on having better and fuller co-operation between HMRC and the CSA. In a recent parliamentary question, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
	"what access HM Revenue and Customs staff seconded to the Child Support Agency have to HM Revenue and Customs data systems while on secondment".—[ Official Report, 18 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1849W.]
	The answer was that they have none, which was surprising.
	Secondly, I have discovered that HMRC charges the CSA for information supplied on referrals—the charge is £3.79 per referral—whereas banks and other financial institutions have to supply that information for free. It seems pointless to have money going from one Government Department to another—that money has to be audited, and there are costs involved with that—when both the Departments involved should be co-operating fully with each other to ensure that the right money gets through to the right parents for the benefit of the children concerned.
	Thirdly, will the Minister confirm with his colleagues in the Treasury that, when an IDG 43000 form is signed by a non-resident parent, it will trigger full co-operation between HMRC and the CSA? My information is that staff involved in the central policy information strategy at HMRC are not be co-operative on this issue. There is no hope of Lords amendments Nos. 118 and 119 being successful if we do not get these co-operation issues sorted out. There is no point in passing more legislation when the present legislation is not being properly used. That does not fill me with confidence that the co-operation between HMRC and the staff at the CMEC will be more effective in the future.
	As I said earlier, I do not expect the Minister to have at his fingertips any detailed information on relations between his Department and the Treasury, or between the staff at HMRC and the CSA, but when he replies to this debate, I would be most grateful if he could give me an assurance that he takes the issue seriously and recognises that it is of the greatest importance that we get this right if we are going to make the CMEC work successfully. We both want the same thing—namely, to get the system to work—and, as I have said, I have current information from HMRC staff seconded to the CSA and who are dealing with my constituents that the system is not working satisfactorily at the moment.

Paul Rowen: I, too, welcome the amendments. I am sure the Minister recalls that in Committee we also raised concerns about ensuring that all income is taken account of when an assessment is being made, and we provided examples of cases.
	The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talked in particular about the construction industry and examples involving self-employed people in which it was quite clear that not all the information was being made available to the CSA. Therefore, the parent with care was not getting their full entitlement. Any steps that the Minister can take to ensure that when further information is made available it is not just accepted but properly investigated will be pertinent to the success of CMEC.
	The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire made some relevant points about the operation of the CSA and the arrangement with HMRC. In Committee, we strongly laboured the point about the lack of consistency between the two Government agencies in ensuring that such information is made available. The Minister assured us that that would take place. I hope that the amendment and the new arrangements achieve proper follow-through on that. He knows as well as I do the figures on the amounts of money that are not being collected and the effect that that has on child poverty.
	It is clearly important to all of us in the House that we have proper arrangements in place, so I welcome the amendment, which recognises that a parent with care can put forward more information and that the commission will properly investigate it. As the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire said, we need assurances on how the gateway between departments is working, because clearly it is not working at the moment and there is no point putting new legislation in place if we are not going to get it working.
	On amendment No. 90, I again welcome the way that the proposals are going with regard to disclosure of information through the family courts. As has been said, it is important that the family courts and the commission work closely together. Those are often difficult times for families, particularly the parent with care. Emotions are running high and lots of things are going on, so it is clearly important that the commission has access to information that will be revealed during any divorce settlement and that could materially affect the assessment that CMEC makes.
	I want to question the Minister further on a matter that my noble Friend Lord Kirkwood raised in the other place. It relates to amendment No. 90, proposed new section 49AA(2)(c) and the use of the word "reasonably". The amendment says:
	"This section applies if...the party reasonably considers that the information is relevant to the exercise of the Commission's functions relating to child support in relation to the child."
	If the commission was seeking information from the court, I could understand that it ought to act "reasonably" and not go on a wild goose chase, but we are talking about "the party"—that is, the person who may well want the commission to look at information revealed during family court proceedings. I do not want a clause in the Bill being used as a loophole for the parent without care to get out of supplying information that could lead to a better settlement being provided for the parent with care.
	I would have thought that the parent with care, acting as the guardian of the child, would clearly be acting reasonably because they would want to put before the commission all information that would enable them to get a proper settlement, which would enable them to bring up the child properly. Conversely, the parent without care may not want to act reasonably, because he or she will not want to provide such information.
	While the word "reasonably" may itself sound reasonable, it rings alarm bells for me. I can imagine the parent without care going to the court and saying, "It is unreasonable for that information to be provided." It should be for the commission to decide what is reasonable. The Bill states what information it can and cannot seek. We are not talking about debt collections, or information that could allow third parties to gain access to people's financial affairs. I agree with my noble Friend that the amendment is unnecessary, and sets alarm bells ringing in relation to why it is there in the first place. I hope that the Minister can clarify the issue, because I do not think that it was dealt with satisfactorily in the other place.

James Plaskitt: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman is able to stay for further considerations this afternoon, he will see that we are coming to that very point. I am grateful to him for raising it, but I offer him that little tempter to follow the proceedings even further.
	I do not think that there is the loophole that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) fears, and I want to reassure him on that. The reason why we think it important to include the word "reasonably" in respect of information from the parent with care is, as he might realise if he were to think about some of the cases that he has seen, that it is still an important safeguard to have in place. We are often dealing with individuals who have resentments against the former partner, for one reason or another, following the break up of the relationship. It is possible even for the parent with care sometimes to continue taking perhaps vindictive or vexatious action against the person who has become the non-resident parent.
	If any submission could be made by the parent with care to the commission to further a dispute about a real level of income without there being any grounds to sustain it, there is a risk that the commission would be swamped with all sorts of initiatives to go after establishing true income levels when there is no robust evidence to suggest that the non-resident parent is trying to mislead the commission. It is sensible for us to require that the commission initiates investigative action of that sort, and we are strengthening its duty to do so, as I think the hon. Gentleman realises, but it is reasonable that we should in turn require the parent with care to put up reasonable grounds for suggesting that the commission should do that. That means that we will keep the commission efficient and its efforts concentrated on where they are likely to produce results.

James Plaskitt: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the inclusion of that word does not in any way water down the obligation on the parties for full and free disclosure of information during the court proceedings. Not to do so would be a contempt of court.
	I think that I have covered all the points raised and I hope that the amendments will secure the approval of the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

James Plaskitt: This group of amendments relates to the powers available to the commission to tackle non-resident parents who continually fail to meet their financial responsibilities to their children. A particularly important suite of measures in the Bill allows the commission to target non-payers directly through their bank accounts, using deduction orders. The powers were discussed at some length in Committee, and I agreed then with hon. Members on both sides of the House that it would be desirable to make the commission's options in this respect as wide as possible.
	The Bill as we debated it in Committee limited the powers to the use of periodic and lump sum deductions from personal current accounts, and to lump sum deductions from personal savings accounts. It therefore excluded deductions from business accounts, and from joint personal accounts. The amendments widen the primary provisions so that no type of account will be excluded on the face of the Bill. The details of accounts which will be excluded, if necessary, will be set out in regulations. That sends the right message to those thinking about trying to evade their responsibilities, and allows the powers to be exercised flexibly by the commission in the years ahead by making proposals to Ministers on the content of regulations. It also gives us the necessary flexibility to consult and co-operate with the financial services industry, to ensure that we take due account of its concerns about, for example, cost of administration, and to allow us to keep abreast of changes in the provision of financial services. Regulations under these powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
	The Bill has also been amended to allow the commission to apply for a freezing order in relation to property or assets held by a non-resident parent where it becomes apparent that he or she is about to dissipate those assets. We have also added an additional power to allow the commission to make an application to the court to set aside a disposition made by a non-resident parent where it was made with the intention of defeating a claim for child maintenance. These are powers that were supported and, in some cases, proposed by Opposition Members, and I am pleased that there is so much common ground between us on the need to provide the commission with the powers necessary to bear down on non-resident parents who are not meeting their obligations.
	Furthermore, following concerns raised about the recovery of historic debt, the Bill has been amended to ensure that all new and existing powers to collect child maintenance can potentially be used on debt of any age. We have already amended regulations so that there is no longer a six-year time limitation for an application for a liability order on debt that accrued on or after 13 July 2000. However, there is some debt which had already reached six years of age before then and the amendment ensures that when the new administrative liability order comes into force, the same enforcement mechanisms can be used on all debt regardless of age.
	Finally, the Bill will be amended to provide for a court-based mechanism for the removal of travel authorisation—passports and, in due course, the equivalent provision in identity cards—from non-resident parents who wilfully neglect or culpably refuse to pay their child maintenance. It is an equivalent procedure to that which applies already for driving licences.
	As my colleague Lord McKenzie of Luton pointed out when the amendment was tabled on Report in the other place, we proposed it in response to legitimate questions from the Select Committee on the Constitution of that House concerning the importance to the individual of holding a passport and the fact that decisions to withhold such documents are usually made by judicial determination.
	The amendment means that the commission will have to apply to the court for an order to disqualify the non-resident parent from holding or obtaining travel authorisation, rather than being able to take the action administratively. However, I hope that we can all continue to reflect on which decisions need to be made by the courts and which could be made more effectively by administrative action. To that end, we reserve the right to come back to the House to reconsider which decisions should fall within the commission's remit. However, this arrangement is appropriate for this Bill.
	I hope that when we return to the matter, Opposition Members will approach it in the same spirit of consensus that we have seen with other tough enforcement measures, such as the powers to enter bank accounts that I described. The amendments are in many cases a welcome strengthening of the powers that we originally proposed for the commission, and many of them pick up suggestions from Opposition Members. I commend them to the House.

Andrew Selous: The third group of amendments that we find before us, which relate to deduction orders and preventing avoidance—the issue that was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker)—and travel restrictions, are all amendments with which those on the Conservative Front Bench find favour, not least because some of them are our very own.
	Amendments Nos. 7 to 23 are clearly sensible. They relate to the setting up of regular deduction orders. It is important to note that there is a right of appeal to the court should there be a problem with CMEC taking money from someone's account. If that is wrong or unreasonable in any regard, people have a right to go to court. It is important to mention that. The amendments are an additional useful part of the toolkit that we are giving CMEC. We welcome them because they are necessary.
	In particular, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who served with me on the Conservative Front Bench during our scrutiny of the Bill. In relation to clause 10, I think that it was my hon. Friend who spotted in Committee that current and deposit accounts needed to be specified on the face of the Bill to cover every type of bank account to ensure that those parents who owed maintenance did not set up accounts that were not touched by the regulations. It is good to see that specification.
	Amendments Nos. 24 to 49 relate to lump sum deduction orders. The Minister has already spoken a little about people paying by credit card and paying off arrears that they owe. The orders will be another means by which those arrears can be paid. The Conservatives continue to take the issue of debt very seriously. It weighs heavily on those parents to whom child maintenance is due. They feel that the money is owed to them, that they have been cheated of it and that their children have not had the benefit of it. We will certainly be vigilant in ensuring that the commission is fearsome in collecting that money, which is owed to many children up and down our country.
	Amendments Nos. 50 to 52, 96 and 98 are very important and deal with the precise point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. They can both prevent and then set aside afterwards the disposal or transfer of assets in order to avoid legitimate child support maintenance payments. That is important. All too often, money is transferred into different accounts—perhaps into a new girlfriend's account—so that it cannot be touched, and someone then says, "Look at me. I'm penniless. I've got a couple of pounds in my bank account and no income." Such things happen. As the Minister said, people are pretty savvy and have worked out ways to avoid their obligations in the past. The important message that needs to go out is that the net is closing, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), who is another of my parliamentary neighbours.
	Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 82, 99, 102 and 122 will put the removal of passports or identity cards on to the same basis as the removal of driving licences and the imposition of curfews. The commission will be required to go the courts in the first case to take away someone's driving licence or to impose a curfew on them. It was therefore pretty surprising to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean and my noble Friend in another place, Lord Skelmersdale, that the Government intended to remove passports purely by administrative order and, moreover, not just by the commission's staff. Let us remember that, as we heard earlier, many of CMEC's functions could be contracted out, properly, to private businesses. So an individual, perhaps relatively lowly, employed by a private business somewhere could have the power to take away someone's passport.
	We understand the need to have the threat of taking away passports. Indeed, I was conscious of the fact that that was something that the Australian Child Support Agency was doing some time ago, when the Select Committee on Work and Pensions visited Australia in the last Parliament to look at how its CSA seemed to work rather better than ours. I welcome that power—it is important—but I hope that it never has to be used. No one takes any joy in the fact that someone's passport or ID card is taken away, but the threat of doing so is important to bear down on those people who try to avoid their responsibilities.
	The Minister is right in that he and his parliamentary colleague the Minister in the Lords, Lord McKenzie of Luton, were rapped over the knuckles by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. The Committee's report states that the Minister in this place was trivialising the removal of passports. He said that the holding of a passport
	"relates to discretionary activity—the drive to go on holiday, for example".
	Many of us thought that that did not take into account the fact that we are a trading nation and have been for hundreds of years. Many people need to earn their living by going outside these shores to provide an income to their families and to the children of their former families. I am pleased that, after some persuasion by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, the Government changed their mind. However, I have a couple of questions about the removal of ID cards, which the Minister referred to earlier.
	The Government want to introduce identity cards. That is a source of political dispute among various hon. Members on both sides of the House. Assuming that identity cards are introduced at some point in the future—not a prospect that I personally welcome—I wonder whether the Minister will explain the position of someone whose identity card is removed. Will people perhaps be unable to gain access to benefits in any shape or form? Will they be unable to gain access to the health service in any shape or form if their identity cards are removed? If they are stopped by the police and the police have the right to inspect our identity cards, will they just get a white pass because their ID cards have been taken off them by CMEC? I hope that there are some fairly clear answers to those questions. If not, there will be considerable problems.
	I listened very happily to everything that the Minister said, until about the last three sentences of his remarks, when he rather alarmed me by saying that the Government reserve the right to return to the issue of removing passports by administrative order. That seems a bit strange.
	We have before us a hard fought for, much argued over amendment that we finally got right in the House of Lords, which says that a court should be approached when someone's passport is to be removed, but the Minister now says that that is all subject to review and that there may be a return to administrative orders at some unspecified point. That is a bit like the situation regarding the reviews that will be held on whether CMEC will continue to have Crown status. That worries me, because it seems a little different from the spirit of the agreement struck on the issue in another place by my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale and Lord McKenzie of Luton. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the part of the Bill in question will not be changed by some regulation or other in future.

James Plaskitt: In that case, perhaps I had better begin by responding to the points raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) so that I can release him from these duties as quickly as possible. Let me begin by telling him that he is no nightmare; in fact, I would go so far as to say that those were dream questions, and I will give him the answers.
	There is already in place a significant array of powers that the existing agency can use to deal with assets that can be seized in certain circumstances. Indeed, if the non-payment and non-co-operation have gone so far that the agency has set bailiffs on, the assets can be taken in that way. Far from that process taking years, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it can sometimes move quite swiftly. For example, a charging order can be placed on a property. Obviously, it will not be realised until that property is disposed of at some point, and that will take time, but in the end the money is collected. As he and his colleagues have said, this is about getting a message out there. Non-resident parents need to understand that whatever wheeze they come up with, it will not work, and that the agency—now to be the commission—has such an array of powers of seizure and sequestration that the assets cannot be hidden for ever. From now on, in addition to being able to go into bank accounts and take money out directly, make deductions from earnings and so on, we will have a suite of measures targeted at financial and physical assets, so that resources cannot be parked in those areas in order to escape the responsibility of paying child maintenance. The hon. Gentleman raised the right points—that is why I called them dream questions—and I hope that the answers will not cause him any loss of sleep.
	Let me turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) about the withdrawal of passports. Everyone who has spoken in the debate has reiterated their support for this measure in principle. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) welcomed it for the reasons that he outlined—that it is galling for the parent with care to see a non-resident parent who is pleading poverty taking sometimes quite exotic overseas holidays. That rubs what is happening in the face of the parent with care. It is therefore appropriate that there should be a power to remove passports to cut out that option. Often, it is not the act of removing the passport that is necessary to do the trick, but the threat that that can happen: the mere knowledge that that might well happen if things get to a certain state is enough to make the non-resident parents cough up at some point. The test is not how often passports are withdrawn but the effectiveness of having the sanction in place.
	The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire asked how this might work in respect of identity cards, once they are in place. The way that it may work technically is that the identity card owned by the non-resident parent would have to be surrendered and replaced with an alternative card that did not have the travel authorisation element to it, but all the other functions for which it is necessary to have an ID card could continue to be carried out.
	Let me say to those who have raised concerns about this that many preliminary steps have to be gone through before it gets to the point where the travel documentation is removed. It will not be removed in some arbitrary way, as was implied in some of the comments that have been made—it is very much a final step after many preliminary actions have taken place. Those safeguards are already in place. The only reason why we are saying that this might still be subject to review—the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire asked about this because he was concerned about the last few sentences of my speech—is that it is important to see whether continuing to go through the court-based route, as we have now accepted that we will, imposes unacceptable delays in the administration of this sanction that might have the effect of devaluing it in some way. It is proper for us to be up-front and to say that if that happens—it has been suggested to us that it might be an issue—we would want to have the right to come back to this sanction, because it has to bite and be understood to have teeth. If the court proceedings route proves to get in the way of its effectiveness, it will be right to come back and reconsider the administrative route. Further primary legislation would be required, so there will be any amount of opportunity to revisit it. We have taken fully on board the points made by the Constitution Committee, but I am not going to say that it cannot be reconsidered at some point in the future.
	Apart from that, I have heard broad acceptance for and a welcoming of the amendments, which strengthen the Bill in a way that those who moved them intended. I am happy to take them into account, and I hope that they will be accepted by the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 85 agreed to.

Paul Rowen: We, too, welcome the amendments. The Minister will recall that in Committee a major concern of ours was that the creation of CMEC should not be used as an opportunity to forget about or write off large historic debts. I therefore welcome the effect of the amendments, which will give the parent with care the final say in whether the debt is written off, and ensure that they must agree to any selling on of that debt,. However, I would like to question the Minister about how that will operate. He and I, having dealt with several constituency cases, can imagine circumstances in which there is a long-outstanding debt of a large sum of money, such as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), the children involved have grown up, and a letter arrives from CMEC with an offer.
	Will the Minister tell me what sort of safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the parent with care can seek advice, if they are concerned about the proposal? Will the full details of any settlement be explained to them? If they are owed £40,000, an offer of £20,000 may be acceptable, but will CMEC offer a full assessment of why that amount should be accepted? I would not want a situation to arise in which a letter drops through the letterbox asking for written permission without the possibility of further discussion, face-to-face consultation or further advice before such an offer is made.
	As we have said, we are talking about huge sums of money—more than £1.5 billion. That is a lot of money, and throughout their childhood an awful lot of children have missed the opportunity for that money to benefit them. Will the Minister assure us that there will not be an automatic write-off or selling on of debt? There must be safeguards in place to ensure that the parent with care, and perhaps even the child, who may have reached adulthood, has a say and can have a proper discussion about what an agreement might mean to them. That is important if we are to take forward the provisions, which I welcome.

James Plaskitt: I am grateful to the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) for their support for the amendments. As they say, debt is very important. From our constituency casework, we know the prevalence of the issue and the strength of feeling that there is about it. We know that some of the amounts involved are very large indeed, as was the case with the constituent I met accompanied by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire.
	There is considerable emphasis in the operational improvement plan currently applied to the agency on improving its debt collection performance. I am pleased that the relevant measures being taken are having the intended result. The agency's target is to collect £200 million of debt a year—a sum that has never been achieved before—and it is on course to achieve that. The extra measures that we put in place have enabled it to perform more strongly in debt collection and the amendments will allow even more progress to be made. There is a certain stickiness in attempts to resolve the issue at the moment because of the current regulatory framework, which is why we have accepted the changes and put them into the Bill.
	To reassure the hon. Member for Rochdale, let me repeat that there is no general power of write-off. That would not be acceptable and it is not part of the Bill. It would be completely contrary to our message about the settling of such debts. Let me also try to reassure him that the parent with care is in control in this process; it would not be a case of a letter suddenly arriving saying, "This is what we think you should settle for. Sign here. " It will not happen like that. A deal would be under consideration only after lengthy discussion between the parties involved, and that would will happen only if the parent with care agreed to it. That is the important consideration in this case. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he seeks.

James Plaskitt: We come to the final group of amendments. They are minor and technical, and in most cases reflect the recommendations of the third report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords. The amendments change a number of the regulation-making powers from the negative to the affirmative procedure on the first point of use. The relevant powers are those relating to power regarding the monitoring of curfews and regulations prescribing the conditions of entitlement to a lump sum payment for mesothelioma.
	The group also contains a number of small drafting amendments to ensure consistency, including one to ensure that any reference to maintenance calculations under section 40A of the Child Support Act 1991, relating to an order for committal in Scotland, may be read as a reference to maintenance assessments, so that the provision will operate in relation to both old and new scheme cases.
	In commending these final, technical amendments to the House, I should like to extend my thanks to all who have worked on the passage of the Bill, including Opposition Members and those in another place who have worked to ensure that it emerges improved as a result of the scrutiny that it has rightly enjoyed. The Bill contains important measures. It makes important reforms to the way child maintenance is administered and will help to lift many more children out of poverty, ensuring that more children receive the maintenance due to them and that more parents meet their financial responsibilities. The Bill also introduces a new scheme to pay a lump sum to sufferers of mesothelioma, providing financial support to anyone diagnosed with that dreadful disease.
	I should also like to thank those external stakeholders who have contributed to the development and improvement of the legislation, including One Parent Families/Gingerbread, Families Need Fathers, Resolution, the Law Society of Scotland and many others. I know that they will work with the commission and its staff to give the best possible start in life to this new and unique delivery organisation.

Paul Rowen: I, too, welcome the proposals contained in this string of amendments. The change from the negative to the affirmative resolution procedure is a recognition that this House and the other place have a positive role to play in amending regulations and orders. That issue was raised during our deliberations, and although it may have been because he had his knuckles rapped by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I am grateful that the Minister has nevertheless seen fit to make those changes.
	I welcome some of the provisions in the Bill. It focuses primarily on child maintenance and child poverty, as has much of our discussion, but it also deals with mesothelioma and other payments, which are relevant to my constituency. I also welcome the fact that the Government responded quickly to the concerns that hon. Members raised once the Law Lords had made their decision.
	The passage of the Bill and this string of amendments, dealing with the affirmative resolution procedure, are to be welcomed. I thank the Minister and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for the constructive way in which we have conducted this debate. That we have discussed a series of Lords amendments this afternoon that basically deal with the concerns we raised in Committee reflects the fact that we have gone through a useful process that has improved what I hope will be a cornerstone of legislation to tackle child poverty.
	Organisations such as One Parent Families/Gingerbread and Resolutions are to be congratulated on the support that they have given us all, in providing amendments that have finally found favour with the Government today. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to a useful and important Bill.

James Plaskitt: I again thank the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire and for Rochdale on their support for the amendments in the group and for the Bill in general.
	As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, the Bill is a landmark piece of legislation, in terms of what we hope it will achieve on behalf of children, who have no part in the break-up of their parents' relationship but who can sadly suffer as a result. It is therefore necessary that appropriate arrangements be put in place to ensure that the obligations towards the children are met in way that, wherever possible, ensures co-operative with parents, but is firm with those who might otherwise feel that they have the option not to comply with their obligations. They do not.
	As hon. Members have said, the Bill has received thorough scrutiny. I feel that I am supposed to be displaying bruised knuckles as a result of some of the comments that have been made, but such comments are part of the ordinary scrutiny process that Bills go through. We have tried to take on board the comments made by those Committees that have been part of the process of deliberation on the Bill, as well as by other parties. The efforts that we have made during the passage of the Bill have, for the most part, been entirely constructive—we have done more of this work this afternoon—as a result of which we now have a better Bill.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 94 to 125 agreed to.

Malcolm Wicks: It is accurate to say that we are starting from a low base, but it is worth understanding the reasons for that. The fact that we have been blessed with huge amounts of oil and gas from the North sea and the UK continental shelf is one of the reasons why, historically, we did not invest in renewables. It is also fair to point out that, when we look at some of the nations that already produce a significant percentage of renewable energy, such as Germany, we see that much of that energy comes from hydro resources. As my hon. Friend knows, it is worth studying those comparisons. She also asked about feed-in tariffs. Our renewable energy strategy will be published soon, and we will say something about such tariffs in that.
	There is much to be said for consistency in terms of macro-renewables. We hear a lot about microgeneration; in terms of macrogeneration, the renewables obligation is, in my judgment, a success story. Every year now, we are seeing momentum towards renewable energy. We would have to think long and hard before changing horses and adopting another mechanism. We could lose a couple of years if we did that, and we are faced with targets that are coming up quite soon—in 2020.

Malcolm Wicks: As I said, when KPMG was looking at the investment climate, it made a judgment that we were No. 1.
	In answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), I was attempting to remind the House of the history of this matter. Looking at the different countries involved, we see that this has a lot to do with their natural resources. I have mentioned hydro, for example. It also has something to do with some countries not having our reserves of oil and gas. As I recall, the hon. Gentleman is something of an historian, and a fair-minded man. I would urge him to be fair-minded on this. Long before most of us were concerned about climate change, the oil and gas coming from the North sea from the 1970s onwards was surely a reason why, compared with some other European countries, we were not investing in renewables.

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend is a great expert in this area, and he will know that the feed-in tariff system has been successful in Germany, but at some expense. At a time when affordability is the topic of the moment when it comes to energy, along with the impact on our own constituents, I would ask him to look again at the sheer cost of the feed-in tariffs in Germany. Those costs are very considerable, and I am now advised that they are propelling the German Government towards phasing down some of their financial support for that very expensive technology. Let us also remember that our objective is to bring on microgeneration, rather than to act as a fan club for one particular mechanism as opposed to another. We should all be open-minded about the best way of bringing on microgeneration.

Malcolm Wicks: Clearly, the reason that I did not understand the words was because I had written them in a letter to my hon. Friend. Obviously, I did not have time to write a clearer letter, and I apologise to her for that. A lot will come out in the wash when we publish our renewable energy strategy, which will happen quite soon. If, after that, I need to clarify anything for my hon. Friend, I am sure that there will be an opportunity to do so.
	I shall now turn, at last, to the proposal itself. Because the cost-effective renewable potential of each member state was not taken into account in the setting of the targets, and because of the target's significant economic implications, it is imperative that member states are able to deliver their targets in a way that minimises the additional cost to consumers. I touched on this issue earlier when I said that affordability was very much the issue of the moment for many of our constituents.
	It is also important that the EU should demonstrate to the wider world that it can achieve ambitious targets in a way that reinforces rather than hinders the competitiveness of our industry. Cost-efficiency is therefore essential to the credibility of the targets. In practice, this means that member states must have sufficient flexibility towards meeting their targets, suited to national circumstances. The Government therefore support the principle of renewables trading between member states and derogations for exceptionally large projects that are not complete by 2020. I could be thinking of the odd barrage here or there. We welcome the indicative nature of the interim targets.
	Concerning biofuels, which were raised earlier, sustainability is of course—I wish to confirm this—our No. 1 priority. When the 10 per cent. target for use of renewables in transport was agreed at the 2007 spring European Council, at which it was acknowledged that the majority of the target would be met through use of biofuels, it was subject to two key conditions: it must be possible to meet the target sustainably and second-generation biofuels must become commercially available. Those conditions were reaffirmed in the 2008 spring Council conclusions and should be incorporated into the relevant articles of the renewable energy directive. Biofuel sustainability should also be required by the fuel quality directive.
	The Government are pressing for robust sustainability criteria to be included in the directive to ensure that the biofuels targets will not have negative impacts on, for example, greenhouse gas emissions. That is hardly the result that we would want. Alongside that, the Secretary of State for Transport commissioned the Gallagher review to assess latest evidence of the indirect effects of biofuels. The review is due to report in June and will inform our position on the EU discussions. We will not agree to a target until we are convinced that adequate safeguards are in place to ensure that it can be met sustainably.

Malcolm Wicks: The point here is that there is increasing concern not just in the UK, but across the world and certainly across Europe, on the issue of sustainability. I had hoped that what I have said would reassure the right hon. Gentleman that our voice in Europe will very much be on the side of sustainability. We are all concerned about the emerging evidence on producing biofuels instead of food crops. We are all aware that the rising price of some staple foods—rice, for example—is causing huge concern among the populations of many countries. I want to reassure him that we are pushing for sustainability. There will still be a significant role for biofuels and it is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater on that issue, but sustainability is the crucial word.

Charles Hendry: First, I thank the Minister for arranging for the motion to be debated on the Floor of the House. That is an important contribution. This is a significant issue that many hon. Members will be keen to speak on.
	The motion before us is really two motions. It begins with the normal, rather platitudinous statements that we have come to expect of such motions, saying how marvellous they are, but the key part is the last few lines, which contain the words
	"urges that the Directive should be revised to provide Member States with sufficient flexibility as to ensure that the overall EU and Member State renewables targets can be achieved in a cost-effective way."
	We have had a couple of sentences from the Minister about flexibility, but not much about cost-effectiveness. I hope he returns to that issue.
	There can be no doubt that the directive and the targets that it contains represent a significant challenge. In 1997, the EU set out the target that 12 per cent. of energy should come from renewables by 2010. It looks increasingly unlikely that that target will be met. The Minister is no stranger to the shortcomings of targets. The Government have had their own target that 10 per cent. of our electricity should come from renewables by 2010. Now they are saying that it may be only 8 per cent.
	When it was clear that that target would not be met, it morphed into 20 per cent. from renewables by 2020. However, the Government's latest answer in a parliamentary question suggested that the figure could be as low as 12 per cent. There is clearly an enormous amount of work to be done if we are to have the step change that the directive would require.
	The EU targets are not just for electricity; they are for energy overall. That represents a massive challenge. We will be required to bring 10 times more renewable energy on stream in the next 12 years as compared with the past 12. That is just for electricity. It involves nearly seven times as much energy from renewable sources as has been achieved already.
	It has been calculated by those outside the House that a 15 per cent. energy requirement for Britain translates to 40 per cent. of our electricity having to come from renewables. How do we get there? That is one of the big challenges that we need to address. Peak usage in the UK is about 62 GW, and 40 per cent. of that coming from renewables would involve producing about 25 GW of renewable electricity by 2020. Most of that would have to come from wind power, because the other technologies simply are not yet in a position to deliver an amount of such magnitude. With a typical load factor of 35 per cent. for wind, we might be looking at 70 GW of installed wind capacity by 2020 to achieve that. That is a massive target, and nothing indicates that we are remotely on course to achieve it.
	I recognise the investment that has been made in energy in the past and the huge contribution that it represents, but we are talking of an investment in offshore wind of a similar magnitude to the investment in oil in the North sea over recent decades. Doing for offshore wind what has been done for oil presents a big challenge. I also recognise the massive contributions that British companies are making. I know that the Minister visited the subsea exhibition here earlier today, but I do not know whether he saw, as I did, products being developed by First Subsea which are making a huge difference to the ease with which massive structures can be attached to the sea bed.
	British companies are leading the world, but the challenge is formidable, and we need to know how the Minister thinks it will be met. What contributions does he think will be made by different technologies over the time in question, not in percentage terms but in terms of output? If the technology does not come from wind, where might it come from? Marine technology will make a massive contribution in years to come, but we cannot realistically expect it to do so by 2020. According to reports published this week, the cost of solar energy has fallen significantly, but we shall not be able to make the most of that unless we have financial systems to stimulate the technology and make its use possible.
	I was encouraged by the Minister's observation that there might be a case for doing more about feed-in tariffs, and I hope he will do more when the Energy Bill is debated in Committee in another place. Amendments will be tabled that will enable us to drive forward the agenda, and if no amendment on feed-in tariffs is tabled, both sides of the House will feel that a major opportunity has been missed. We also need to do more about microgeneration: it has huge potential, but without a system of funding through feed-in tariffs nothing will happen.
	The Minister mentioned the Severn barrage. It is unlikely that it could be built by 2020. It has the advantage that, unlike most other forms of renewable energy, the power that it generates would be predictable, but it would probably not be much cheaper than wind. It would require a funding system all of its own, and it is not yet evident how that could be arranged. It would also raise huge environmental concerns. Some of those who have been involved in the technology believe that lagoons might be a better solution, and they might indeed be better for the environment, but they would undoubtedly be more expensive than the barrage. A couple of weeks ago, I visited La Rance in Brittany to see the largest working barrage in the world, built by the French 40 years ago. It is an incredibly impressive structure, which shows what could be done here but also highlights some of the challenges involved, including environmental challenges.
	The problem is that the Government have signed up to a project without knowing how they will deliver it. Perhaps officials in the Department of Trade and Industry, as it was then, thought that the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, would go to Brussels and sign up to a commitment for 20 per cent. of our electricity rather than for 20 per cent. of our energy. Their reaction was one of complete horror. Perhaps that was a parting gift to Tony Blair's successor of what he knew would be something of a poisoned chalice.
	We need to know rather more about the cost. In the explanatory memorandum, the Minister says that his initial estimate of the direct cost to the United Kingdom of the 15 per cent. target is at least £5 billion a year, plus indirect costs in terms of higher energy prices. What doe he mean by "direct cost"? Does he mean the cost of what he has described as the enormous investment in renewable technology and its infrastructure? Can he confirm that although it may include the cost of connecting renewable electricity facilities to the national grid, according to a study by Pöyry Energy Consulting, which his Department commissioned, it does not include the cost of the investment in infrastructure required to meet the target more generally?
	Does the direct cost include the so-called resource cost—the extra cost to the economy of using more expensive sources of energy than could otherwise be used? Can the Minister confirm that the study by Pöyry Energy Consulting suggests that the resource cost will be at least €5.1 billion a year up to 2020, or, in current prices, about £4 billion? Pöyry also says that if an effective market does not develop for the trading of renewable energy and the United Kingdom has to provide for all its own renewable energy needs, that resource cost will rise to €6.7 billion, or £5.3 billion, a year. It says that the lifetime cost to the United Kingdom of meeting the target could be as high as €93 billion. Those are huge figures. In his motion, the Minister talks of cost-effective ways of delivering his proposals. What has he in mind?
	At a time when consumers are profoundly worried about rising costs, what will be the cost to them? How will the Minister carry people with him? At present, if people were asked whether their priority was secure energy, green energy or cheaper energy, they would probably say that they wanted the cheapest possible energy. The age of cheap energy has gone, but in terms of what will be relatively achievable in the future, cost is clearly a particularly important aspect. Has the Minister had discussions with the CBI, the Institute of Directors and other business groups about the impact of these costs on the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom? We all agree that this is the direction in which we should move, but surely we should do so with our eyes open and be aware of the costs involved.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. He has already cited the unrealism of the targets, and the huge potential cost to our constituents. Does he think it wise for us to accept or negotiate a directive under majority voting which would render it beyond the democratic control of the House, and therefore our constituents, after the next election? Will he press very hard for a good answer to the question that he has just raised? There was an alternative, namely to found the measure on a different legal base subject to unanimity. Is that the policy that he would advocate?

Charles Hendry: My support is conditional. If we ended up with new investment in nuclear being put at risk by that one clause, that would give me profound concern. We have to look at the matter and I would be interested in the views of the nuclear industry. The future energy provision for this country is so finely balanced that to start putting in place artificial barriers would be counter-productive.
	The Minister spoke at length about biofuels and the requirement that all member states get 10 per cent. of their transport energy from biofuels by 2020. I have referred to the fact that it would be better if this were done under a system of unanimity rather than by qualified majority voting. Clearly, attitudes to biofuels has been changing; perhaps we were overly positive a year ago and are now overly pessimistic, as we do not take sufficient account of the potential of second generation biofuels and cellulosic biofuels, allowing crops to be used for food and the remainder for fuel.
	The directive rightly puts down many restrictions, but we need to know with clarity where the lines in the sand will be with regard to biofuels being included. This debate is bound to continue, especially in the light of the publication of a report by the scientific committee of the European Environment Agency which estimated that the amount of land required to meet the directive's 10 per cent. target is greater than the total volume of land available that could be used for bioenergy production without harming the environment of the EU. The scientific committee has gone further and called for the suspension of that 10 per cent. biofuels target. In the light of these concerns, does the Minister agree that there is a case for dealing with biofuels separately from this directive, so we can do so from a position of greater understanding about the full impact of their development?
	Can the Minister tell us about the inclusion of biomass? At 350 MW, the Port Talbot renewable energy plant will be one of the largest in Europe. Although it is not renewable on a day-to-day basis, because the wood that it burns releases carbon, it produces renewable energy over the lifetime of the project, as the trees planted to replace those cut down for burning will absorb the carbon dioxide that the plant produces. Would such plants count towards our EU 2020 targets?
	A lot of questions need to be answered. We are at times critical of the Government's decision to hold another consultation because they simply do not know which way to turn. But there is a strong case for further consultation on this exercise and it is crucial that industry and other interest groups take part in the programme. I hope that the Minister will make sure that there is a real understanding of the urgency. He talked about a renewable energy strategy being produced next spring. To many of us that is leaving it rather late. We need to push the programme as far forward as quickly as we can. What we do not have is time on our side. Every month of delay makes these targets even more challenging to reach. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us reassurance on these points of concern.

Michael Connarty: I thank the Minister, if he was involved in the decision to debate this subject on the Floor of the House. I certainly thank the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) for what was clearly a speech based on having read the directive and the report of the European Scrutiny Committee report of 27 February 2008. The Committee was so concerned at the issues contained in the directive and the dilemmas facing the Government that we thought it should be debated here.
	There has been some diversion from the task before us, which is to look at the draft directive. The Minister has got it right in the motion which states that the draft directive
	"should be revised to provide Member States with sufficient flexibility as to ensure the overall EU and Member State renewables targets can be achieved in a cost-effective way."
	Little has been said about the cost. The Minister's assessment to our Committee was that we would need an investment of £5 billion per annum between now and 2020 to reach the target of 15 per cent. The reality, as the hon. Gentleman said, was that we have fallen far short of our previous aspirations; they were aspirations and have not really been targets. The problem with the directive is that it gives the power to the Commission not just to set a target for 2020, but to review it every two years and to take action against states that do not reach their two-year targets.
	Every country is expected to deliver a flowchart as well as a commitment to mandatory targets by 2020. The flowchart will be assessed every two years and the Commission can then use its powers. If it goes through by QMV, those powers can be punitive. The Commission can use the European Court of Justice to force countries to do what the Commission has decided they should do. Flexibility is desperately needed in relation to the directive because I do not believe that it is necessarily well founded.
	Having viewed the EU for the past ten years as a member of the Scrutiny Committee and as Chairman for the last couple of years, it is clear to me that Euro-fudges are driven by political alliances, often in the major states within Europe. It is clear that the alliance between the SPD and, it hopes, the Greens to get back into power in Germany has affected all energy policy in the past four or five years. The Green agenda—an anti-nuclear and pro-renewable agenda— is not necessarily based on what it should be based on: a carbon count. It should not be based on the form of generation, which should be sustainable and help security of supply, but on the basis of the carbon count of that type of energy. Yes, renewables might be shown to be a low-carbon form, but they are a very expensive low-carbon form and we have yet to deal with the major problems associated with it.
	My hon. Friend the Minister referred to microgeneration. The point has been made that if grid access is challenged for a major base-load because of the problems associated with trying to get lots of microgeneration or small generation from wind farms, is that the right choice to make for the country and in sustainability terms? I believe that there was a motion before the European Parliament recently through which it rejected the biofuels proposal because of its effect on the sustainability of food production. I heard that a representative of the Commission's directorate-general said that there will be enough spare land when the common agricultural policy is properly reformed to allow Europe to generate as much biofuel as is required to meet its targets. I do not know whether that is likely to be more than a wish on its part.
	On why we are at such a low base, we should consider paragraph 1.9 of our 15th report. On targets—this is the UK's own assessment—it said that we are
	"at less than 2 per cent...and only expected to rise to 5 per cent. by 2020."
	This directive is asking for a massive increase in commitment to renewables, and it is not one that the UK can sustain, for a number of reasons that I have outlined. We are all dealing with one of those reasons at the moment: our constituents are fed up to the back teeth with the increase in fuel prices. Using biofuels will add to the cost of car fuel and to domestic fuel prices. We and the Government must take that into account—every Government in Europe has to take that into account, given the new range of costs of commodities such as oil and gas.
	There is much to fight for in the directive, much that is good in it. However, on the question of unanimity versus qualified majority voting, raised by the hon. Gentleman, if I recall correctly, the Government's opinion was that article 175(2) should be used in respect of renewable fuels, so unanimity would be required. That has been resisted by the Commission. The Government's first task is to go back and argue the case. Our report points out that, following the 2007 spring European Council that approved the general outline of the White Paper and introduced the draft directive,
	"the Commission made a political commitment to all Member States that it would attempt to agree the national targets by unanimity."
	The first thing that the Government must do is to ensure that these targets are agreed by unanimity. That means every country on that rather odd table appended to our report, which demands that we increase from 1.5 to 15 per cent., but which also demands that a country such as Sweden, which has a very good record, increases from 39.8 to 49 per cent. It might be more difficult for Sweden to achieve that than for us to achieve an increase from 1.5 to 15 per cent. It is as if the figures have been worked out on the back of the proverbial fag packet—on the basis of some rule of thumb made by a Commission directorate-general official. Unanimity is required first, and with unanimity comes the ability of our Government properly to negotiate and to get the flexibility that they are calling for in the motion, which I will support.

Steve Webb: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the profile given to this important subject by it being debated on the Floor of the House. The frustration, of course, is that we get 90 minutes, whereas if we were debating it upstairs in Committee, we would get another hour on top. Given the detailed nature of many of the issues that we want to raise, it is frustrating that so few of us will be able to contribute in any detail.
	It is important to say a word or two about the context. The point of the directive is presumably to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions from energy, heat and transport, yet we are debating this issue on a day when the Office for National Statistics has published greenhouse gas emission statistics for the country showing that in the past eight years, our emissions have barely changed. On hearing the Minister talk about all the triumphs of British policy—on hearing how we are No. 1 at this and that and how we will hit these very bold targets—one would not realise that in the past eight years, we have made no progress at all in reducing our emissions. It is indicative of the lack of drive and determination that we have seen to date that we are starting now from where we are.
	It is extraordinary for the Minister to say that the reason why we are worst in Europe on renewables except for Malta and Luxembourg is that we have had all this oil, and so we were just going to use it and not bother too much about renewables. The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who signed last year's agreement on these renewables targets, is the same Prime Minister who 10 years earlier signed the Kyoto treaty. The Government were only a few months into power when they signed up to the Kyoto targets, yet 10 years later, we are still virtually bottom in Europe on renewables. Is the fact that we had oil somehow an excuse for our lamentable failure? That is what the Minister seemed to be implying—that we were not under any pressure because we had some alternatives, so we did not bother much with renewables. That is a shocking thing for a Minister for Energy to say.
	I have to say that I do not hold this Minister personally responsible. He was not the one trying to solve the energy crisis—he was solving the pensions crisis at the time. We absolve him of having failed to solve the energy crisis because he was dealing with other big problems that have now been resolved.

Steve Webb: I am slightly baffled by this. The argument for why, in 2005, on these figures, we were the worst in Europe seems to be that in the 1970s we found lots of oil. We signed up to climate change obligations in 1997, at the start of this Government's term of office, and for the best part of 10 years on we were bottom of the league. Even if we achieve the goals in this directive, we will still be 18th in Europe. Even if we achieve the targets that everyone is saying are bold and very demanding, we will "surge" to 18th in Europe. Is that not an indication of the paucity of the Government's achievements so far?
	On the one hand, we are trying to cut our carbon emissions through the renewable strategy in the directive; on the other, we are seeing airport expansion and new coal-fired power plants. There is a lack of connectedness in this whole policy, which, again, is segmented into different Departments, none of which has overarching responsibility for the environment. The root cause of the failure of the Government's climate change policy is that no one in the Government with a very big stick is in charge of it. Whenever I do talks on climate change and the environment, I always ask audiences to name the Environment Secretary, and virtually none of them can. I mean no disrespect to the Environment Secretary; rather, that is indicative of the status of the environment within the Government. All the big decisions on the environment—be they on energy, airports, transport, housing insulation, green taxes—are all taken by somebody else. That is the biggest problem.
	On the 15 per cent. target for the UK, the Minister said that we would do our fair share, but of course, we are not. We are doing below our fair share because we failed so much in the past and we start from so far behind. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) suggested that these numbers are made up on the back of a fag packet. The directive indicates that one of the bases for the numbers we have signed up to is where we started from, which is a position of great weakness due to the failure of Government policy to date. One of the reasons why our percentage is so low is that we have such a long way to go. It was extraordinary to hear the Minister say in his introduction that Britain is rated No. 1 by KPMG for offshore wind potential. That implies that we should have a really big target, because we have fantastic renewable potential. Actually, we have a below-average target because even with tremendous offshore wind and tidal power potential, we still cannot credibly get to more than 15 per cent., given how we have done. So the 15 per cent. figure—the fact that we cannot do any better than this—should be a source of national embarrassment, and even that looks pretty difficult to attain.
	One issue is not clear to me. The Minister talked about 15 per cent. and then said, "or thereabouts". In responding to the debate, perhaps he can clarify whether the British Government are going to attempt to water down that target. The motion refers to "flexibility" on achieving that, and in the evidence that he has given on this directive, he talked about flexibility on the trajectory. He will know the directive contains a trajectory—an indicative trajectory—in annex 1B, which suggests that a quarter of the progress must be made by 2011-12 and that 65 per cent. of the progress must be made by 2017-18. I find that alarming, because it means that two years short of the deadline we will need to have made only two thirds of the progress. I hope that the Minister will correct me if my understanding is wrong.
	I understand the point that there is a lag in these things and that they take time to come on stream, but that is an incredibly end-loaded approach. I think that the Minister's position is that he wants even more end-loading. Let us reflect on what the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk just said. He seemed to say that we do not want penalties for really slow progress in the early years, because we will have this great surge in the end. My worry is that the British Government will say, "Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow", but tomorrow may never come. Unlike the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, I think that the threat of imposing serious penalties on the British Government so that we can make steady progress as we go is a very good thing. It is entirely welcome because we know what the British Government would do without someone taking a big stick to them.
	The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has responded to the directive, producing a written ministerial statement on 23 January. It was totally delusional. It is baffling to realise which country is being referred to when the Department describes the situation. I have not got time to go through it all in depth, but paragraph 13 states that we
	"are aggressively implementing our micro-generation strategy."
	Which microgeneration strategy are the Government aggressively implementing? I have not noticed it. They are opposing the only microgeneration strategy in town—feed-in tariffs—for now, because they are going to consult on it in the summer. They will probably eventually give in on that. Where is the aggressive prosecution of the strategy?
	The whole document is full of delusion about the position that we have reached. Paragraph 14 states that
	"we will need to do even more."
	It then discusses heat, a crucial subject about which we have had a brief discussion. There was nothing on renewable heat in the Energy Bill. Why? Guess what? It was because we will need to do even more. We will need to incentivise renewable heat, which is why we are told that
	"we will shortly be issuing a call for evidence".
	When are the Government going to get on with it? A legislative opportunity is going through the House at the moment that would allow any necessary legislative steps to be taken on renewable heat, yet there is to be a call for papers and perhaps a conference. Perhaps I could attend that, to listen and debate. Perhaps there could be a further consultation draft.

Katy Clark: I strongly welcome the fact that we are getting the opportunity to debate this draft directive on the Floor of the House because, as has already been made clear, achieving the targets will have substantial implications for many areas of policy. I welcome our focusing clearly on the document before us, which highlights the fact that previous attempts to meet renewables targets have not been very successful. In 1997, a directive setting a non-mandatory target of 12 per cent. by 2010 was not successful, and, as has been said by many hon. Gentlemen, it will be very difficult for us to meet the targets being set by the European Union.
	Although it will be very difficult to meet, it is very important that we sign up to a mandatory target on renewables of 15 per cent. As has been said, we are starting at a very low base. There are many reasons for that, but part of the cause is that we have not taken earlier challenges as seriously as we should have done. We need an acceleration on our approach in many areas of policy if we are to meet the targets being set by the directive.
	The debate on these issues often focuses strongly on electricity, which is, of course, an extremely important factor. However, it is only one of the areas that we need to examine, and it is clear that if we are to meet the directive's targets, the renewables sector will have to be substantially developed. I welcome what the Government have done on renewables obligation certificates—ROCs—particularly the provisions of the Energy Bill. They introduce enhanced ROCs in relation to other forms of renewable energy.
	We need to go further than that and we need to examine what has worked elsewhere in Europe, so I urge the Government to re-examine the issue of feed-in tariffs, particularly in relation to micro-generation. However, I am not of the view that we should move away from ROCs, because they have been exceptionally successful in encouraging the private sector to invest in research and development and in the expansion of renewables that we so desperately need.
	The table provided to us from the European Scrutiny's 15th report of Session 2007-08 highlights the situation in which we find ourselves; the UK is starting from a very low base. Only 1.3 per cent of our share of energy came from renewable sources in 2005, which compared with Sweden's 39.8 per cent., Portugal's 20.5 per cent., Finland's 28.5 per cent., and the Czech Republic's 6.1 per cent. We are very low down the table. I believe that only Luxembourg with 0.9 per cent. and Malta, a small island without a history on renewables, came below the UK.
	We need to see significant changes in policy if we are to achieve the kind of development that we need. Like many hon. Members here tonight, I have a constituency interest, in that a range of planning applications is pending, including for wind farms, which provide part of the solution, but only a very small part. We need to look at all the other forms of renewable energy that are available, and ensure that we enable speedy research and get the financial resources to put into development. We do not know for sure which forms of renewable energy we will rely on in the future, so we have to put a financial regime in place that encourages development of all the various forms.
	We also need to recognise that we are not talking only about electricity generation. To meet our carbon targets, we need to ensure that we are more effective in our use of the electricity that we produce. That goes beyond this directive, but will be essential in ensuring that we meet our targets. Transport will also have a major role to play, but that is an issue for another day.
	What is important in this debate is not our discussion today about the exact method used to meet these targets, but whether we should have the targets at all. If we sign up to the directive and the potentially legally mandatory targets, action could be taken against us if we do not meet them. I support the Government's courageous position, in Europe and domestically, on the Climate Change Bill, which contains mandatory targets for carbon reduction. This directive fits well with our domestic policy, and for that reason I strongly support the Government's position on the directive.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The tonnage tax is an important issue for the shipping industry. It certainly does not feature, if I recollect correctly, anywhere in the notes that I am about to deliver on behalf of the Department, but I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the threat of a change in tonnage tax regulations that we feared would adversely impact on the success that we have derived from the arrangements in recent years has receded, that the Commission is revisiting its proposals and that the tonnage tax will therefore continue to be to our advantage. In that instance, we are not worried by what is happening in Europe as a result. However, I can write to the hon. Gentleman to give him much more detail in due course, but the tax is not part of the package that I am referring to this evening.
	The EU maritime Green Paper sought to take forward the Lisbon strategy on sustainable growth by simulating employment in the maritime sector and by applying ecosystem-based management of marine resources and the marine environment. It addressed important policy areas, including the retention of Europe's leadership on sustainable maritime development, the maximisation of the quality of life in coastal regions, governance issues in the EU and the wider international arena, the reclamation of Europe's maritime heritage and the reaffirmation of its maritime identity.
	Those themes are broadly continued in the new maritime policy package, taking into account the consultation responses received by the Commission. The paper, "An integrated maritime policy for the European Union", together with its supporting documents, which include an action plan, sets out a vision for a joined-up approach to maritime policy, taking as its premise a perception that all matters that relate to marine areas that surround Europe are, in essence, linked to one another. Therefore, it proposes the idea that all marine-related policies must develop within a governance framework that embraces a shared cognisance of those connections to ensure that the best results are achieved and that positive developments in one area do not inadvertently blight progress or prospects elsewhere. I emphasise that no firm legislative proposals stem from the package at this stage.
	The Government note that the European Council conclusions of 14 December 2007 gave a broad welcome to the Commission's initiative and invited the Commission to progress the initiatives and proposals contained in the action plan, which forms part of the package. We await the appropriate developments.
	Turning now to the documents under scrutiny this evening, the lead document in the package sets out the concept of an integrated maritime policy. It provides an analytical framework and a set of objectives that lay the foundations for the accompanying action plan in addendum 2. The other supporting papers contain a discussion of the Green Paper consultation responses, an impact assessment and a summary thereof, and a European Commission staff working document that looks at the connections and synergies between the energy policy for Europe agreed at the European Council in March 2007 and maritime policy.
	The lead communication declares that the new package aims to enhance Europe's capacity to face challenges of globalisation and competitiveness, the effects of climate change, environmental damage, maritime safety and security, energy needs and sustainability. Allied to that goal is a desire to enhance employment and economic growth, underpinned by high standards of research, technology and innovation. The keynote is that the way in which maritime policy is made would be changed. Rather than policy being developed through compartmentalised dossiers, it would develop as an integrated form that recognised the relationships and interactions between different activities in the maritime sphere.

Michael Weir: Taking things further back, some progress, albeit small in recent years, has been made, particularly with fishing communities, in respect of taking some decision making closer to the communities through management plans and the Scottish fishermen's voluntary scheme on environmental matters. Can the Minister assure us that such movement will not be jeopardised by the new pan-European scheme that is before the House today and that the interests of the fishing and other maritime communities around these islands will be closely considered?

Robert Smith: I have been in correspondence with the Minister on the benefits that ship-routeing services can have in reducing the air pollution from shipping. I see that the Government are committed to the idea that it is the IMO that should make the regulations, as the Minister said in his letter to me. My constituent, Aerospace and Marine International, which is based in Banchory, provides a ship-routeing service. Will he assist that company by meeting the IMO to discuss taking forward an improvement to the regulation of shipping, in order to reduce CO2 emissions through the use of that service?

Katy Clark: Reading from the documents, I welcome the review of European Community labour law exemptions for the shipping and fishing sectors. Will my hon. Friend outline the Government's likely approach in those negotiations?

Julian Brazier: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate maritime matters on the Floor of the House, and particularly to debate the EU's approach to such matters. The House should be grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending that we have this opportunity.
	The subject is under-debated. The maritime sector, if one includes ancillary industries and services ranging from Rolls-Royce's world-beating engines to maritime insurance and law, is the UK's third largest industry. It supports almost 250,000 jobs and contributes an estimated £11 billion a year to our economy, yet its national footprint is minuscule. Even though 95 per cent., by weight, of all goods brought into the country come by sea, the sector is almost ignored by the media and wider public, except when there is a disaster at sea, such as the beaching of the Napoli, or when a tanker unleashes a slick of oil, which, mercifully, is extremely rare now.
	So I am pleased to speak in the debate, and pleased that it falls so close to the newly introduced European maritime day, one of the items that comes up in the bundle of documents that we are discussing. It is one small item which we, the official Opposition, welcome, although I am a little concerned that it does not seem to have developed much beyond Maritime Ministers meeting in Athens to toast each other with much champagne. I would be interested to hear the Minister's proposals for extending the reach of the maritime day to the public at large and what measures he will be taking with the industry to boost its public profile. I must say, in fairness to him, that I know he is personally committed to that.
	In the three years or so that I have been covering maritime affairs for the Opposition, the European Union's Commissioner for Maritime Affairs seems to have had something of a change of heart. It certainly needed to change. That directorate used to be one of the worst examples of Euro-fanaticism in the whole Commission. Let us hope that the change of heart is permanent.
	One of the issues that has been of the greatest concern and that has reared its head several times is the threat of an EU register and the development of an EU flag for our merchant vessels. I was delighted to hear once again that the Government have pledged their opposition to those plans, and I join them in welcoming the fact that the Commission has dropped the plans in the current document, but vigilance is still important. I see the Minister nodding. Such a proposal, particularly the creation of an EU register, would essentially create a new flag state, demanding a common seat on international bodies such as the International Maritime Organisation and a common coastguard.
	As the Minister said, the proposal for the creation of a common coastguard has been dropped. That is a relief, not least because of the nature of many of the coastguards in the European Union with which our own Maritime and Coastguard Agency would have been merged. I shall single out the Greek coastguard, as I dealt recently with a particularly horrid constituency case. After the trial of the coastguards concerned, it became clear that there had been a number of cases of sexual abuse of migrants, and even allegations of throwing illegal immigrants into the sea. Britain has a long and honourable tradition in its coastguard. Not only are there extreme examples such as the Greek one, but a merger would be ridiculous when the circumstances are so different around the European Union. Indeed, some countries have no coastline at all.
	The debate provides an opportunity to chide the Government for a moment for allowing the operating conditions of the coastguard to deteriorate to the point where we have had three one-day strikes by the paid employees and one strike by the coastguard volunteers, the very first examples of industrial action by our coastguard—Her Majesty's Coastguard, as it used to be called—in its centuries-old history. Given that those men and women are responsible for rescues involving up to 50,000 people a year, it seems extraordinary that the staff are so poorly paid and start on salaries of around £12,000 per annum.

Julian Brazier: The short answer is that I cannot promise a specific sum, but our review would be different in that it would be specifically in the context of the other emergency services, a linkage that, to date, has not been acknowledged.
	Nevertheless, I share the Government's strong opposition to the EU's original plans for merging the coastguard and, like the Government, I recognise that we need closer co-operation between the different coastguard services. I enjoyed my recent visit to the MCA at its headquarters in Dover, and I thank the Minister for facilitating that. I was struck by the points that the coastguard made to me about the importance of developing a better relationship with its French counterparts, which is a relatively recent suggestion.
	One plan that does not seem to have disappeared from the documents is the Commission's ambition, albeit more tentatively stated, to take up a role within the various international organisations relating to the sea, not least the IMO. The Government have not been quite as hostile to that proposal as they have to some others. Their document declares that
	"an attempt to seek a wider Community role"
	in the IMO
	"is likely to be counterproductive".
	That is welcome, but there seems to be more ambiguity over other multilateral organisations. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether he thinks that there is any international organisation with a role in shipping in which there should be a greater EU presence at the expense of member states. The plain fact is that different member states have different interests. Some do not even have a coastline, and none has the kind of maritime hub that we enjoy in London. It is essential that British interests continue to be represented in international bodies instead of having a joint EU presence.
	While discussing the EU's relationship with the IMO, I should like to support the Government's statement on inadequate standards of ships with certain flags. We are all concerned about the quality of control with certain registers but, like the Government, the Opposition believe:
	"The correct fora to address this matter are the IMO and the Port State Control MOUs"—
	not, by inference, the EU. This is valid across a wide range of issues where the EU has decided to go off on a proposal by itself without consulting the rest of the world. I am thinking, for example, of the North sea and the Baltic SOx—sulphur oxide—emission control area. Because this is an EU rule rather than an IMO one, Intertanko, which represents more than 75 per cent. of the world's independent tanker fleet, has reported that large numbers of ships not flagged to an EU state have simply decided to ignore the ruling and refused to bunker low-sulphur fuel, preferring—on balance of probabilities, it is a commercially sound decision, however antisocial—the risk of getting caught. That is a classic example of a good intention implemented by a body out of touch with the market leading to unintended consequences. By acting unilaterally, the EU has merely put an extra burden on to its own vessels at a time when there are already other pressures for people to leave European flags and register under other flags. The right way to make progress on these matters is to negotiate them through the long, hard route of the IMO, which can deliver on this.
	While discussing the difficulties in persuading companies to flag to the UK, there are two matters obliquely touched on in the documents that the Government ought to be taking more seriously with the Commission. The first is the threat to the UK fleet of proposals to force UK-registered vessels to pay equal salaries to all its EU-national sailors, regardless of the salary the sailor could expect in his or her home state. This will not result in a fairer deal for poorer EU nationals, as the Commission hopes, nor will it result in more UK seafarers being hired, as the unions might hope—all that it will do is put further pressure on companies to flag out instead of paying higher wages. In that way, they will not even have to pay for the training of UK cadets, as the tonnage tax, rightly in our view, demands.
	That brings me to the tonnage tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has already mentioned. I was partly comforted by the Minister's answer. None the less, it is well known that the European Commission is casting its eyes over the UK tonnage tax, coming on top of the Government's own restrictions. As I have acknowledged publicly several times, the tonnage tax is an achievement by this Government that we welcome and believe in. However, the changes that were made to lease arrangements were not seen as helpful at a time when owners can see that other countries have introduced their own equivalents to the tonnage tax. More recently, the proposed amendments to the Finance Bill, which have fortunately now been dropped, sent out a worrying signal to the market that the tonnage tax regime may not be stable. Members will have seen stories in the media that Evergreen is considering re-flagging to Singapore, with the future of the tonnage tax at the top of its list of concerns. I was glad to hear the Minister's answer on this, but if he can strengthen it a little in his final response, that will be welcomed by the industry. We need to make it clear that this is not an area where the European Commission should be interfering.
	There is much in the documents about maritime clusters and how the EU should support them. As we all know, the world's leading maritime cluster is right here in London, and it is, to some extent, threatened by the EU. The Minister must impress upon his colleagues in the Treasury and in the Commission that this, particularly where the tonnage tax is concerned, could be the unwrapping of what has been a considerable success.
	The last of the Commission plans which has wisely been dropped is the directive on access for ports. The line-up against that directive has been very interesting. The European Transport Workers Federation has stood side by side with the port of London, Dutch socialists and Conservative MEPs. I was delighted to see that the proposal had gone. One thing that came up again and again in the debates on that issue was the flexible approach that our continental cousins take when it comes to interpreting European regulations—not a situation unique to shipping. I endorse the Minister's comments about the suggestion that an added duty for the Commission to ensure that all EU ports operate in the same environmental framework and use similar regimes of interpretation and enforcement is important.
	There are things in the document to support and a few remaining things that need fairly vigorous opposition. On this occasion, the Government seem, on the whole, to support that which needs supporting and to oppose that which needs opposition. There are areas where we feel that their opposition should be more vigorous but, on balance, it would be churlish to oppose the Government's motion.

Louise Ellman: I welcome this important debate, and I would like to thank the European Scrutiny Committee for its work in enabling the debate to go ahead in such a well-informed way.
	The maritime sector is vital to the economy of the United Kingdom, with 95 per cent. by volume and 75 per cent. by value of the UK's international trade transported by sea. In 2004, £330 billion of the UK's international trade moved through our seaports. Short-sea traffic trade with Europe and the Mediterranean accounted for 39 per cent. of all container traffic in 2004. The industry is important to our economy, and that importance justifies paying attention to the holistic approach to maritime policy we are asked to consider in the development of European integrated maritime policy. In terms of the UK, the issue is national, regional and European. Other perspectives involved in maritime policy includes issues such as economic development and regeneration, the environment and security.
	The proposals in the documents deal with integration and the setting up of a European maritime policy. In the Government's comments on what are ongoing discussions rather than firm proposals, it is right that they have drawn attention to the importance of subsidiarity and of having added benefit when considering any widening of competences. I am pleased to see that in the action plan, developing a European policy is not simply an issue of competence but one of considering decision-making on policy, setting up networks, sharing information and enabling expertise in one area to be used for the benefit of all. That is an important part of developing a European policy.
	I welcome the parts of the documents that refer to clusters. Clusters of maritime excellence are important and I have seen their benefit in the work done by Mersey Maritime, which has brought together different sectors in the industry. It has enabled tens of thousands of new jobs to be developed in the sector. It has supported training in the nautical sector and developed courses with local colleges, encouraging young people to become involved in nautical matters. Developing a cluster of maritime industries matters and it is important that that process is led effectively. I would like to see more work done, however, on its implications for Europe as a whole.
	I would like to point out three areas where there are significant concerns, and where, looking at the documents, it does not appear that the Government have given sufficient consideration to the policy as a whole. The first concern is about the competitiveness of United Kingdom ports in comparison with the rest of Europe, and in particular whether the privately owned United Kingdom ports compete on a level playing field with the subsidised, nationally owned European ports. Evidence given recently to the Select Committee on Transport showed that the capital costs for a terminal operator of opening a facility in the United Kingdom were three times as much as opening one in other parts of Europe. The question must be asked: why?
	The Government's ports consultation document states that United Kingdom applications for funding from the European regional development fund, the trans-European transport networks or the Marco Polo initiative for short-sea shipping must satisfy the Government as to their compatibility with fair competition between ports. We would not quarrel with that objective, but the question must be asked: is that criterion applied equally stringently in ports throughout Europe or does it concentrate simply on what is happening in the United Kingdom?
	My second concern is about the security of ports. The proposals in the documents for increased surveillance of ports are welcome. If that were done properly, it would be effective. However, there is also a proposal in the documentation for a European maritime transport space without barriers. More questions need to be asked about what that exactly means. The proposal talks about simplifying administrative and customs barriers, but what does that mean for growing security needs in cargo and loading in ports?
	Legislation enacted in the United States means that from 2010, ships sailing to the USA from foreign ports must be investigated and receive security clearance at their ports of origin. How will that relate to the European maritime transport space without barriers? I understand that some concern has been expressed in Europe about the American proposal, but it is not quite clear what that means. What does the proposal mean for the security of shipping entering our ports? That is an increasingly important question.
	My third concern is about freight policy. Attention has already been drawn to the importance of the United Kingdom's developing a more effective national freight policy. Infrastructure is particularly significant to the development of ports policy in the United Kingdom, and that means having better co-ordinated and integrated freight policy. However, there is a question mark over what is happening with freight from European operators. I understand that there is a proposal to allow European hauliers to operate wholly within the United Kingdom. What does that mean for maritime freight and United Kingdom hauliers? We do not have the answers to those questions, but there is growing public concern about the impact of freight operators from other parts of Europe on the United Kingdom's already hard-pressed haulage business.
	I should like the Government to go beyond the comments that they have already made and consider the specific issues that I have raised, so that as the debate continues and a much-needed European policy develops, we can ensure that the United Kingdom's interests are protected, although in the context of the also important European dimension.

Michael Connarty: The documents were in fact considered by the Select Committee on European Scrutiny on 16 January 2008. It is in the eighth report of the Session 2007-08. The time scale is not for proposals by 2009. The extract from the European Council, which is on page 21 of our report, says that the Commission is invited
	"to report on progress achieved to the European Council at the end of 2009."
	There is quite a long way to go before it ever becomes legislation.
	I can assure the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) that our Committee will be referring any substantive points proposed for legislation to the European Committees. No do#ubt he will go along and argue those points in detail. Our Committee thinks that to send certain documents to the Floor of the House for debate is to give them a certain status in the public eye which means that people may then go and read the documents that you have taken the trouble to read—sorry, I should say documents that everyone has taken the trouble to read, perhaps including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I am not quite sure. People will then get to know why they are of such import.
	The Minister should be commended on the fact that he was very thorough, not only in today's debate, but in his response to the Committee in his explanatory memorandum. He may have been reading from a report, but it was a report penned almost entirely by him, if my recollection is correct.
	I welcomed the first contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) as the new chair of the Transport Committee. She has learnt her brief very quickly, given that this was sprung on her soon after her selection. I think that Members should also welcome, without churlishness, the fact that our Government have been so much a party to the movement within the discussions and consultation that rejected the European Union shipping register proposal. Our Government also took the lead in putting together forces that led the Commission to understand that it must reject the original proposal for a European Union coastguard. That is part of what the European Scrutiny Committee does in its relationship with the Government, through not a mandatory but a persuasive and, we hope, a supportive system, giving our Ministers strength to go and argue these cases and see off some silly ideas from the Commission.
	It is also clear that we have safeguarded our national voice in the International Maritime Organisation. The Commission will come back to us, of course. Let us be honest: it does that. There is Commission creep. The Commission will competence-creep, trying to put itself in a position in which it can speak for the whole of Europe, which may mean asking countries to be a little quieter so that its voice can be heard. I hope that that will be resisted at some point.
	We should also welcome any action that advances good maritime governance. I am sorry that such action has not been welcomed by those who thought that it should be done by the IMO. We are not in excellent condition. There is too much pollution, and there are too many problems with flagship sources and the behaviour of people in the maritime industry. The EU must think about what is to the best advantage of its own community, of which we are part.
	The idea that all marine-related policies must develop within a governance framework that embraces a shared recognition of those connections to ensure that the best results are achieved must surely be in all our interests. It is not contrary to our membership of the IMO. The Commission staff working document develops ideas in relation to maritime clusters in particular, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend. The Commission suggests that they could play a
	"role... in increasing competitiveness, boosting jobs and creating synergies between interrelated sectors."
	We already have maritime clusters in the United Kingdom. Paragraphs 2.8 to 2.10 of our report outline the concept in some detail. We should welcome the possibility of a European network of maritime clusters working together, some of which can be developed in other countries such as France, Germany and Poland. We already have a model, however. The south-west and the north-west, for instance, are working together in a way that I hope can also be welcomed.
	As I told the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), the Commission intends to follow its documents with detailed proposals. I assure him that the European Scrutiny Committee will recommend debate on some, if not all, of them. There are also aspects of the Government's approach that should be welcomed. It strongly emphasises the concept of subsidiarity, as paragraph 2.15 on page 19 of our report makes clear.
	We are wary about proposals for more data collection. Paragraph 2.14 on page 18 of the report points out that there is already a collection network, which is not a single organisation but the result of co-operation between a number of research organisations. The possible threat to our competitiveness, which worried the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—the possibility that our competitive advantage will somehow be done down if the European Union takes an overarching role—is a threat faced by a number of countries, and one of which we should always be wary. When we standardise, we lose some of our competitive edge, as the Government point out in paragraph 2.14 on page 18.

Angus MacNeil: I just want to support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Last week, I saw the Border Heather leaving Ardveenish in Barra. It carries fuel from Grangemouth around the coast of Scotland, and probably to the Orkneys and Shetlands too, and it is registered in the Isle of Man. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said, this seems to be a great example of commission creep.

Alistair Carmichael: I think that commission creep is a slightly pejorative term, but I know the sentiment that underlies it, and I am not without sympathy. I put it no more strongly than that.
	I am sure the House would be disappointed if I sat down without making some reference to fishing. The report draws our attention to
	"an eco-system based approach to fishing, including the stopping of illegal fishing and environmentally damaging fishing practices".
	Nobody could take exception to that statement, but I would feel much more comfortable with it if it were to have more regard to, and would tie itself more firmly to, the regional elements that we have seen in recent years in the development of fishing policy and a system that involves fisherman, scientists and other stakeholders in the industry all working together. We need them to bring their expertise to bear to get a system that has credibility with fishermen, with scientists and with conservationists. At the moment, the CFP is none of those things.
	There is substantial opportunity for co-operation within the EU between maritime clusters, and that is one of the positives that the papers have identified. However, I wish to place on record my disappointment in one respect. Last weekend in Kirkwall we had a major conference on the future of maritime education, attended by representatives of the shipping industry and of academic bodies throughout Europe, indeed the world. It also included representatives of the IMO and even the EU. We did not, however, have a representative from the UK Government. The project that the conference sought to promote—the northern maritime university—could be a textbook example of co-operation between maritime clusters, but the UK Government simply did not care about it.
	Unless we take such issues on board, we will miss a huge opportunity for training the next generation of officers and officer cadets, which will be necessary as the shipping industry takes on the massive expansion that the Government say they expect. However, they could not be bothered to send one person to Kirkwall to learn more about it. That was a disappointment.

James Duddridge: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the Driving Standard Agency's proposed closure of Southend driving test centre, to which 3,000 people have objected in the petition that I presented to the House a few moments ago. It is a serious subject for all people in Southend who are considering taking their test or have children who are likely to want to take their test in the Southend area.
	The proposed closure of a driving test centre is not a new topic in this House. On 21 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) held a Westminster Hall debate about the proposed closure of a test centre in his constituency, and on 13 May my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) joined a debate on the closure of a test centre in his area. Those changes relate to an European Union directive coming into effect in September, which will change the content of motorcycle tests across the EU by introducing certain manoeuvres that require off-road testing facilities. I do not intend to dwell on the merits of that, but it is a matter of fact that that has happened. Southend driving test centre is situated on Prittlewell chase, deep within the heart of Southend, and has no space for such a facility. The Driving Standards Agency has therefore proposed that all bike and car test operations be moved to a new so-called multi-purpose test centre in Basildon, some 14 miles away from Southend. That does not sound like a long distance, but in fact it can be a 45-minute to one-hour trip.
	My feeling and that of several colleagues is that one size does not fit all, and that the Government are imposing a solution on Southend that does not fit. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and I have been campaigning against such a move. My hon. Friend has raised this on the Floor of the House and in written questions to the Minister, and I am most grateful for that. My close parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) has also raised it in his constituency and in a number of other ways. Although the test centre is situated in the constituency of Rochford and Southend, East, which I have the pleasure to represent, it is very close to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West; in fact, if it were another 100 yd further up the road, it would be in his constituency. Given the additional time that has been created for this important debate, I hope that both of my hon. Friends will be able to catch your eye later on in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I would like to concentrate on why I am against the closure of the Southend driving test centre, and my primary reason is population. I ask the Minister to address those concerns, which I have not seen addressed in depth in other debates. I will also mention issues associated with time, finance and the environmental impact of the proposed move. The Driving Standards Agency's code of practice states that in towns where the population density is greater than 1,250 people per sq km, learner drivers should have to travel no further than seven miles to a test centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West solicited that information in a detailed answer to a parliamentary question of Thursday 22 May. Southend is the largest town in Essex. According to the Office for National Statistics' 2006 mid-year population estimate, its population was recorded as 3,829 people per sq km, and the Minister, from previous discussions in previous roles, will know that my hon. Friends and I regard that as a major underestimate.
	That population is already more than three times the recommended level discovered by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West in the answer to his parliamentary question. The Driving Standards Agency would be breaking its code of practice by having a test centre serve a population density three times higher than the recommended level and at double the recommended distance that learners should travel. It is a totally unsatisfactory situation. What is the point of having such guidelines if someone in the Department—I am unsure whom—is going to overrule them flagrantly?
	The current test centre is ideally located in Southend. The moderately sized road that the centre is on has five secondary schools, four of which have sixth forms, meaning that up to 1,000 students in any one year may want to take their test there. The proposed move will be a major inconvenience for them. The university of Essex is developing its new campus in Southend, so another 9,000—maybe more—people of typical learner driver age will be based just around the corner.
	Population density is my key objection to the proposal, but I am also concerned about the distance to the new test centre and the time it will take drivers to get there. They will be travelling not only for their test but, on other occasions, to acquaint themselves with the test centre area. If they do not do that, I suggest to the Minister that they will be at a fundamental disadvantage. I was in that position as a 17-year-old, having to travel between 45 minutes and an hour, and I had to make that journey four or five times to acquaint myself with the test area. That certainly did put me at a disadvantage and I am concerned that young students taking their test in Southend will be at a disadvantage because they do not know the roads and the area around the test centre in Basildon. Indeed, there is no reason why they should be familiar with that area.
	The two roads connecting Basildon to Southend are the A127 and A13, which are normally heavily congested. The journey could take up to an hour, and in summer it can be an awful lot worse. There are many tourist facilities in Southend; many people go there for a day trip and the roads become heavily congested. I am particularly concerned for constituents from the Shoeburyness area or, just outside the boundaries of Southend, those in the Rochford district, who already have to travel a number of miles to get to the current test centre. The journey will be even further than 14 miles for them.
	The extra distance will come at a price. People offering driving tests and practice in the new test centre area will not do so for free. It will take extra time to get there. Costs are already very high for aspirant learner drivers and rising fuel prices and fuel tax are making a significant financial impact. The proposed closure is a further blow to young people who want to be socially mobile, and who want to get to employment and education opportunities. The whole process will be more and more expensive. One company that I have spoken to has already had to increase its rate for a two-hour lesson from £38 to £45, and I am sure that the cost will increase further. Equally, a number of people from Southend will decide that they want to receive all their instruction in Basildon. I can see sensible reasons for doing that, but I am concerned about the loss of employment for driving instructors in the Southend area or the costs of having to relocate nearer to the driving test centre.
	Let me deal with a separate issue, which has been touched on in other debates, but which I should like to expand on in more detail: protecting the environment and our carbon footprint. It is important—the Government recognise this—to decrease vehicle emissions, yet the proposal will put cars on the road for longer, polluting further the Southend-to-Basildon area, which is already subject to considerable pollution along the main roads. At a time when the Government are trying to demonstrate their green credentials and sound like they are doing lots, the proposal seems to go in the opposite direction.
	Can the Minister say whether an environmental impact assessment of the change has been conducted that considered more than the additional mileage? In terms of both the environment and time spent travelling, 14 miles is not a long way, but if a driver spends most of the way sitting in a traffic jam, pumping out more fumes, there is a much greater impact. I have seen no evidence that the issue has been considered to date, so I would be reassured if the Minister could provide that information.
	The proposals have been met with strong objection by local instructors and residents. As someone who does not solicit a large number of petitions, I can confirm that it is quite rare to receive a petition from constituents with more than 3,000 names. That shows quite strong opposition from local residents. I was first alerted to the issue last November and have since met a number of driving instructors, including the very good John Ashton, who represents the Southend and District Driving Instructors Association. John spoke to me not as an individual, but as a representative of the entire association—some driving instructors did not want to be named and were concerned not to be disadvantaged by the test centre management by coming out against the proposal. John emphasised that he was speaking on behalf of all the driving instructors in the association—I believe that means all the driving instructors—and nobody supported the Government's proposal.
	In the very full parliamentary answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West received, the Minister noted that he had received 317 letters of objection. I found that difficult to comprehend, when compared with the petition of 3,000 people that was presented to me for onward presentation to the House. An awful lot of my constituents—and, I suspect, those of other hon. Members—have written directly to the Driving Standards Agency, not to the Minister. I wish that they had bombarded the Minister with letters early on. I know that that would have meant extra work for the Minister and his private office, but they would perhaps have been alerted to the severity of the issue and the strength of public feeling, because I suspect that 317 letters to a Minister's private office is not an enormous number. If the Minister could indicate how much correspondence the Driving Standards Agency has received and what the overall level of objection to the proposals has been, that might put this debate in its proper context.
	Let me turn to a potential resolution. I do not want to tell the Minister, "Leave it as is—we don't want to do anything; I don't want any change." Rightly or wrongly, there is a piece of EU legislation and we have to comply with it. I was disappointed that the Driving Standards Agency had not consulted Southend borough council. I have spoken to the chief executive, Rob Tinlin, who was keen to engage with the Driving Standards Agency and use alternatives—either a multi-purpose test centre in Southend or, given the advantages of the existing site for cars, separating the two centres. One does go to a test centre and say, "Can I take my car and motorcycle test at the same time?" Although they are both modes of transport, the tests do not necessarily have to be located in the same place.
	The chief executive is willing to consider a number of sites. On my way in, I was explaining the issue to the Doorkeeper, who suggested Southend pier, which is the longest pier in the world at 1.33 miles. It has seen motorcycle activity in the past, with the wheel of death, but I do not think that it is a particularly good option. However, there are several options in the Southend area, and the local council is happy to sit down with the Minister, his Department and the DSA—whoever it takes—to find a more equitable solution that will work for local people and the Department.
	I should like the Minister to respond to the points raised in the debate and, ultimately, for us all to sit down with the DSA to establish what can be done for the benefit of the people of Rayleigh, Rochford and Southend to keep a decent driving test centre in the area that can be reached easily by our constituents and future constituents who, quite rightly, want to pass their driving test in their own area.

David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) on securing this Adjournment debate. All that needs to be said has been said, but in spite of that, I want the Minister to hear directly from me—another voice. In speaking, I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), and it also good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) here.
	The Minister and I are united in our support of West Ham. On that basis alone, I ask him to tear up the brief given to him by his hard-working officials, which will tell him, "No, Minister; no, Minister; no Minister!" I want this Minister to say yes. He has been very courteous in responding to the points that I raised in April, when he gave me a full answer, but the proposal is totally unsatisfactory. As someone who has been privileged to represent the real Basildon constituency for 14 years, and now Southend, West, I am in a prime position to share with the Minister the ramifications of this proposal. I ask him to stand up not only for Britain, but for Southend, regarding this European Union directive. I have never heard of anything so crazy. Because of motorcycles, all our motorists are going to suffer.

Mark Francois: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) on securing this important Adjournment debate and, if I may say so, on introducing it so ably. I also congratulate him on presenting a petition bearing the signatures of 3,000 people protesting very clearly against what the Government propose. I have been in the House for longer than my hon. Friend, but I believe that the largest number of names on any petition that I have ever presented was about 1,300. I imagine that 3,000 is a considerable number. I hope the Minister will take account of the strength of local feeling, which I shall now attempt to echo on behalf of my constituents.
	I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on his apposite contribution. He is in a unique position in that, as he said, he has represented both Basildon and his present constituency. As the proposal is to move the test centre from Southend to Basildon, he could be said to have addressed the issue from both ends. He knows both areas very well, and I hope that the Minister will give weight to what he has said as well.
	It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) in his place. I know that he takes an interest in these matters, and he gave a pertinent example from his constituency tonight.
	I too have constituents who may be affected by the move. Some are potential students, while others are instructors working from the existing test centre who have written to me urging me to raise the issue. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so on their behalf.
	Let me ask the Minister a few specific questions. The first concerns the European Union directive that lies at the heart of the change. Was it passed on the basis of unanimity, or by qualified majority voting? I think we should have that on the record. It is often argued that Europe has no real impact on our day-to-day lives, but this is a perfect example of its having such an impact.. A directive—in effect, a European law—was passed, and some time later we have seen a change "on the ground". I consider it important for the House to know the background to that change, the method by which the directive was passed, and the Government's position on it.
	There is also an environmental point to be made. If the Minister is at all familiar with the roads that link Basildon and Southend, the A127 and the A13, he will know that they can become very busy. When the traffic is light, it is possible to travel at a reasonable pace between the two towns, but when it is at all heavy, it can take a long time to get out of Southend and then down to Basildon. If the standard driving lesson lasts an hour, it is likely that, for a fair part of the day, by the time a student has worked his way out of Southend, perhaps been picked up by the instructor at home, got on to one of the two main roads and reached Basildon, the bulk of that hour will have gone. A lesson lasting at least two hours will be necessary to familiarise the student with the roads around the test centre. That will add to the costs incurred by the student, and the costs that instructors will have to charge.
	That last point is particularly pertinent. The service provided by instructors for their students will become more expensive. As I think the Minister will agree—without our getting involved in a debate about global oil prices—we all know that instructors' costs are rising because the cost of petrol has increased considerably. That imposes additional pressure on the instructors, who must raise their fees to cover the cost of the petrol. Now they will sometimes have to make their lessons longer, and more expensive, in order to convey their students to the area where they will practise on the test route. That is a practical, down-to-earth point, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East said, the Essex university campus in Southend has been something of a local success story. As a result, thousands of people who are at the prime age for learning to drive are moving to the area. The Government therefore find themselves in the rather odd position of seeing a large number of potential driving students moving to Southend while they are proposing to move the test centre to Basildon. My hon. Friend's point bears repetition and I ask the Minister to take it on board.
	It is not appropriate to make this a partisan debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West pointed out that all the local parties in the Southend area are opposed to the move so I am not trying to politicise the debate. However, there is a wider issue about the degree to which the Government are getting their message across in the south of England. This could provide the Government with an opportunity to claim that they really are listening to opinion in the south and are taking on points that were put to them. I will be no more partisan than that but the Minister, an old hand in this place, will follow my point. I dangle that not entirely partisan inducement before him and I hope he will listen to it.
	At the risk of making an emergency stop, I will halt there. We have a bit of extra time this evening and it is appropriate that we give that time to the Minister so that he has the maximum time to reply. I conclude by saying that this is an important issue locally. A lot of people have taken it seriously and a petition of 3,000 names should not be ignored lightly. I hope that he will take all that into account when he replies.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) on securing the debate on this important issue and on providing a platform for his hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), who is his party's Front-Bench spokesman and appearing under a different guise; quite an accomplishment at the end of a long parliamentary day.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East stated that the Driving Standards Agency proposal for the future of certain driving test centres had already been raised in the House. In those previous debates, the context of recent and proposed changes to the delivery of driving tests were set out and, for reasons of brevity, I will not cover all that ground again; clearly it is not necessary.
	Developing a new national network of driving test centres has been agreed by Ministers not only to facilitate the new European requirements for practical driving and riding tests, but because the new requirements set higher standards intended to provide driving tests that are more relevant to modern driving conditions. We published our "Safe driving for life" consultation document only four weeks ago. The document raises the question of the abject failure rates that we have for first-time driving test candidates and the fact that we are killing so many people on the roads, particularly young people and motorcyclists.
	These new European standards support our domestic strategy for reducing road casualties, which are running at more than 3,000 people killed and 30,000 people seriously injured each year. I regret that I am not in a position to answer the question of the hon. Member for Rayleigh on the voting protocol that passed this directive, but I undertake to research the matter and to write to him and his hon. Friends with the answer.
	As hon. Members know, the new centres are based on updated features that will provide modern facilities for local people. The proposed developments have been designed to create attractive buildings that will fit comfortably into the local environment. They are fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and also support the Government's wider sustainability agenda.
	The new centres, known as multi-purpose test centres or MPTCs, will be suitable for the delivery of practical driving tests for learner car drivers and motorcyclists. Where possible, some will also be used for the delivery of lorry and bus driving tests. The DSA has concluded that between 40 and 50 MPTCs would be required to meet existing service standard criteria. However, to maximise population coverage and minimise the number of candidates who have to travel long distances, it is seeking to develop around 60 MPTCs across the country. The DSA owns or leases more than 400 practical driving test centres—the type described by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. Only in a few exceptions have any of these proved suitable for the development of a full MPTC, so a programme of land acquisition and construction was initiated in 2005.

James Duddridge: I must admit that on reading the background before the debate, I was confused as to why this was being proposed. To me, it seems completely illogical. Is this a cost-cutting exercise? There are 400 sites—is the Minister just trying to realise some cash?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The answer to that is no. However, the DSA is a cost-neutral organisation, so the money that has to be raised will have to be paid for by test fees and transferred to members of the public. Therefore, this is an exercise in managing the cost of these new centres.
	Let me deal with that issue now. To date, the DSA has acquired 41 sites. The provision of a national network of MPTCs is expected to cost in the region of £71 million. That cost will largely be recovered through increased fees paid by driving test candidates. As an organisation that relies on test fee income for the provision of its services, the DSA needs to ensure that they are delivered in a cost-effective way that avoids unnecessary expenditure. The agency therefore closely examines how it delivers its services and seeks greater efficiencies in the way that it conducts its business. This includes reviewing existing driving test centre provision to ensure that, while the service standard is maintained, there is no wasteful over-provision of service.
	As I have already mentioned, the DSA has certain service standards that need to be met where possible. In more densely populated areas of the country—all the hon. Gentlemen present have mentioned this issue—where the population density is equal to or greater than 1,250 persons per sq km, most candidates should not have to travel more than seven miles to a driving test centre. I have heard the comments of the hon. Gentlemen on this question, and I will ensure that the statistics they quoted are fully taken into account as part of the consultation exercise.
	The existing driving test centre at Southend is located in the offices of the Department for Work and Pensions. This is a 1960s building that does not offer the modern facilities that we try to provide for customers and staff wherever possible. There are also concerns that if the planned redevelopment in the immediate vicinity compromised its suitability as a test centre, the DSA would need to consider relocation for that reason, irrespective of developments in Basildon.
	The DSA has considered how best to meet the needs of driving test candidates in the Southend area. It is proposing to move driver testing in the area to a new MPTC facility at Basildon, some 10 miles away, as has been outlined. The Basildon facility would have the capacity to absorb the demand from Southend without compromising waiting time targets, if acceptable. The relocation of the Southend facility to the Basildon MPTC would ensure maximum utilisation of it and improve the facilities available to candidates and staff in the Basildon, Southend-on-Sea and surrounding areas.
	As the distance to the alternative facility exceeds the travel distance criterion applicable to the Southend area, the DSA has undertaken a 12-week public consultation, seeking the views of its customers and other interested parties. The consultation period ended on 9 May and the DSA is considering the responses received. I point out to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East that a final decision has not yet been taken. I know that the chief executive, Rosemary Thew, is aware of this debate and will ensure that the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, including the environmental impact and the question of consultation with the local authority, are all taken into account.
	I have listened to the arguments about the risks from the A13 and A127.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been referring to the information that I have in my brief. I know that the hon. Gentleman was very keen to encourage me to tear up my brief, and I can assure him that I am not going there. In all honesty, I do not have to, because my brief says that although the consultation ended on 9 May, the process has not concluded and this debate will form part of the chief executive's consideration. I shall supply details of what is included in my brief in respect of the facilities that are extant are the moment.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sorry that I am not in a position to give additional information now, but I shall certainly supply that, so that the hon. Gentleman can scrutinise that which I have been given in my brief to explain the background to this issue.
	Arguments have been made about the risks of the A13 and A127, and questions have been raised as to whether people would be at a disadvantage and whether people are suitably prepared because of the different environments. I am not readily persuaded that that is necessarily relevant to the matter under consideration. The DSA and the Department advocate "Safe driving for life", and I would expect driving on such roads to be included in the latter part of a candidate's training regime in any case. It has to be preferable that experience is gained on such roads when the candidates are accompanied by an experienced instructor, rather than when they are unaccompanied novices and possibly driving immediately after they have passed their test.
	We also do not support the view that learner drivers need regularly to practise driving in the area close to the test centre. That is not a sound argument for deciding where to locate local driving test centres. Experience should be gained on a variety of roads, and in a variety of traffic conditions and locations to prepare pupils for not only their test but their future driving career. Visits to the test centre need only be, and should only be, for pre-test familiarisation.
	I am not for one second suggesting that instructors in the Southend area are only taking candidates around the test course to familiarise them with it. I am sure that people with integrity are delivering the training in the Southend area. However, in certain parts, we suspect that what I have described is exactly what is happening—people are taught how to pass the test and they are not taught how to drive. One of the big issues that we have raised in the training-for-life approach is our seeking to change the module. Instead of the candidate demonstrating that they are able mechanically to handle a vehicle, we are saying that they should show us that they can drive the car. So, the examiner will not get into the car with the candidate and say, "Go to the end of the road and turn left, and then go to the end and take the first right." Rather, they will get into the car and ask to be taken to the local railway station, the local hospital or the local football ground, whichever involves a well-signposted route along which the candidate would be expected to demonstrate the skills of driving, rather than the training. That is the kind of issue that is being consulted upon at the moment.
	In the interests of road safety, driving instructors should be teaching their pupils to drive safely and confidently, not simply to follow known test routes. I would point out that the DSA's database confirms that some customers from the Southend area choose to take their driving tests at the Brentwood, Tilbury and Chelmsford test centres, and that the Southend test centre attracts customers from the Basildon area. Therefore, many driving test candidates already use the major roads in the area.
	The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the difficulty of striking the right balance between the provision of a satisfactory level of public service and the cost that service incurs. I did say to him that this is not a cost-cutting exercise, but I have explained the background to the costs involved.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is not a cost-cutting exercise. We will not close all the test centres, only some, because of the requirement to improve facilities. A mix of arrangements is in place across the country. Some sites are leased; others are not. There is a requirement for additional land for off-road testing for motorcycles, and the £71 million I mentioned earlier is a cost that the DSA has to match. We are not, therefore, talking about a cost-cutting exercise.
	The hon. Member for Rayleigh made the point about the cost of additional lessons and travelling for the test. In our consultation document on driver training and testing, we have mentioned that this will be a cost-neutral exercise, on the basis that it costs some £1,500 to pass a test. A small minority of people pass their test first time. If we train drivers to a better standard, perhaps through some additional lessons, they will not have to have a second test or a second series of lessons. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and the insurance companies are very interested in drivers being passed to a higher standard, because if novice drivers have fewer crashes—a disproportionate number of crashes involve young drivers and some are killed because many of them think that they are invulnerable—the insurance companies will not have to charge the astronomic premiums that they charge young drivers in their first year. That will come if we can demonstrate that we are training people to a higher standard, that they are safer drivers who have fewer crashes and that they can be trusted. Employers would also be able to take young people on with greater confidence and would not have to undertake in-house training, which many companies do at present because they do not trust the driver-training regime. Given the failure figures and the 3,000 deaths, we all want to see safer drivers.
	I cannot assure hon. Members that Southend will stay open, but I can say that the points that they have raised will be communicated to the DSA. Senior management will read  Hansard and may be watching at the moment, because they know that the debate is taking place. They will be able to observe the strength of feeling and they will also be aware of the 3,000 signature petition presented tonight. They are aware of the correspondence, because they have told me about the hundreds of letters that they have received. They are aware that the consultation exercise is necessary because they are outwith their own guidelines on density, and they know that they have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of an objective observer that it has been done properly.
	I cannot give the hon. Members the answer that they want, but I can give them the assurance that this is an objective exercise and will be done properly. I will get back to them in due course on the issues on which I said I would give further answers.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 21 May 2008: In column 308, delete "Mr. Hanson: We have provided...", and insert "Huw Irranca-Davies: We have provided..."